4 ms·
I've done a fair amount of work in the area, and one of the biggest lessons is "even if you can diagnose, you shouldn't" We likely won't have to deal with the
by curiousllama 6y ago
I've done a fair amount of work in the area, and one of the biggest lessons is "even if you can diagnose, you shouldn't"
We likely won't have to deal with the legal dilemmas for a while for a simple reason: doctors _hate_ when non-doctors diagnose, and you can't build a diagnostic tool without doctors. The tools simply won't get built to any real quality standard.
There's an easier path, interestingly. It's much more effective to just give docs the info they need. A system that could do the following would be the holy grail: "Patient entered ER with [chest pain, shortness of breath], and has a history of [hypertension, diabetes]. They are on [X, Y medication], but have not filled their prescription in [Z weeks]." No diagnosis, just the right info at the right time.
- omarhaneef 6y agoThe expert system guys in the 80s -- and this is before my time -- came to a similar conclusion, but for the reasons I am laying out (responsibility). They also decided it was better to have a computer make a suggestion to a doctor than to give it unvarnished to a patience, sort of assisting the doctor. I won't disagree with experts (yourself, or them), but there is the issue of scaling it. Consider a poor person in a poor country for whom the alternative is not a delayed appointment with a real person but no advice at all.