Abstract:Imagine you are a patient who has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The two main approaches to treating it in the United States are active surveillance versus the surgical option of radical prostatectomy. Your physician recommends the surgical option, and spends considerable time explaining the steps in the surgery, the benefits of (among other things) eliminating the tumor and the risks of (among other things) erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence after the surgery. What your physician does not tell you is that she has arrived at her recommendation of prostatectomy over active surveillance based on the analysis of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) system, which recommended this treatment plan based on analysis of your age, tumor size, and other personal characteristics found in your electronic health record. Has the doctor secured informed consent from a legal perspective? From an ethical perspective? If the doctor actually chose to “overrule” the AI system, and the doctor fails to tell you that, has she violated your legal or ethical right to informed consent? If you were to find out that the AI/ML system was used to make recommendations on your care and no one told you, how would you feel? Well, come to think of it, do you know whether an AI/ML system was used the last time you saw a physician? This Article, part of a Symposium in the Georgetown Law Journal, is the first to examine in depth how medical AI/ML interfaces with our concept of informed consent. Part I provides a brief primer on medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Part II sets out the core and penumbra of U.S. informed consent law and then seeks to determine to what extent AI/ML involvement in a patient’s health should be disclosed under the current doctrine. Part III examines whether the current doctrine “has it right,” examining more openly empirical and normative approaches to the question. To forefront my conclusions: while there is some play in the joints, my best reading of the existing legal doctrine is that in general, liability will not lie for failing to inform patients about the use of medical AI/ML to help formulate treatment recommendations. There are a few situations where the doctrine may be more capacious, which I try to draw out (such as when patients inquire, when the medical AI/ML is more opaque, when it is given an outsized role in the final decision-making, or when the AI/ML is used to reduce costs rather than improve patient health), though extending it even here is not certain. I also offer some thoughts on the question: if there is room in the doctrine (either via common law or legislative action), what would it be desirable for the doctrine to look like when it comes to medical AI/ML? I also briefly touch on the question of how the doctrine of informed consent should interact with concerns about biased training data for AI/ML.

Medical AI, inductive risk and the communication of uncertainty: the case of disorders of consciousness

Artificial intelligence and machine learning in disorders of consciousness

Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

A Survey of Surrogates and Health Care Professionals Indicates Support of Cognitive Motor Dissociation–Assisted Prognostication

Online public reactions to fMRI communication with patients with disorders of consciousness: Quality of life, end-of-life decision making, and concerns with misdiagnosis

Real concerns, artificial intelligence: Reality testing for psychiatrists

Machine learning and network analysis for diagnosis and prediction in disorders of consciousness

Cognitive Biases and Shared Decision Making in Acute Brain Injury

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications in Critically Ill Brain Injured Patients

Discriminating cognitive motor dissociation from disorders of consciousness using structural MRI

Empowering the voiceless. Disorders of consciousness, neuroimaging and supported decision-making

To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis

Medical artificial intelligence for clinicians: the lost cognitive perspective

A diagnostic illusory? The case of distinguishing between "vegetative" and "minimally conscious" states

Preferences in AI algorithms: The need for relevant risk attitudes in automated decisions under uncertainties

Informed Consent and Medical Artificial Intelligence: What to Tell the Patient?

Early discrimination of cognitive motor dissociation from disorders of consciousness: pitfalls and clues

Artificial intelligence in medicine – is too much transparency a good thing?

Ethically Translating Advanced Neurotechnologies for Disorders of Consciousness: A Survey of Clinicians' Perspectives

Big Data/AI in Neurocritical Care: Maybe/Summary