Examining Ghana's Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857) To Determine Its Adequacy in Governing the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Delivery and Medical Negligence Issues

George Benneh Mensah
{"title":"Examining Ghana's Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857) To Determine Its Adequacy in Governing the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Delivery and Medical Negligence Issues","authors":"George Benneh Mensah","doi":"10.58496/mjaih/2024/004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This analysis examines Ghana’s Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857) to assess its fitness to govern the ascent of artificial intelligence (AI) in reshaping healthcare delivery. As advanced algorithms supplement or replace human judgments, dated laws centered on individual practitioner liability struggle to contemplate emerging negligence complexities. Act 857 lacks bespoke provisions for governing this new era beyond outdated assumptions of human-centric care models. With AI projected to transform medicine, proactive reforms appear vital to enable innovation gains while upholding accountability. \nThrough an IRAC legal analysis lens supplemented by case law spanning from the United States to Ghana, this paper demonstrates how judiciaries globally are elucidating risks from legal uncertainty given increasingly autonomous health technologies. Findings reveal governance gaps impeding equitable access to remedy where algorithmic activities contribute to patient harm. Calls for stringent training, validation and monitoring prerequisites before deploying higher-risk AI systems signal a reframed standard of care is warranted. \nDetailed recommendations to modernize Act 857 and adjacent regulation are provided, covering practitioner codes, product safety, ongoing evaluation duties, and crucially, updated liability rules on apportioning fault between disparate enterprises enabling flawed AI. Beyond protecting patients and practitioners, enhanced governance can boost investor confidence in Ghana’s AI healthcare ecosystem. Ultimately astute reforms today can reinforce innovation gains tomorrow across a more ethical, accountable industry.","PeriodicalId":424250,"journal":{"name":"Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare","volume":"358 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58496/mjaih/2024/004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This analysis examines Ghana’s Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857) to assess its fitness to govern the ascent of artificial intelligence (AI) in reshaping healthcare delivery. As advanced algorithms supplement or replace human judgments, dated laws centered on individual practitioner liability struggle to contemplate emerging negligence complexities. Act 857 lacks bespoke provisions for governing this new era beyond outdated assumptions of human-centric care models. With AI projected to transform medicine, proactive reforms appear vital to enable innovation gains while upholding accountability. Through an IRAC legal analysis lens supplemented by case law spanning from the United States to Ghana, this paper demonstrates how judiciaries globally are elucidating risks from legal uncertainty given increasingly autonomous health technologies. Findings reveal governance gaps impeding equitable access to remedy where algorithmic activities contribute to patient harm. Calls for stringent training, validation and monitoring prerequisites before deploying higher-risk AI systems signal a reframed standard of care is warranted. Detailed recommendations to modernize Act 857 and adjacent regulation are provided, covering practitioner codes, product safety, ongoing evaluation duties, and crucially, updated liability rules on apportioning fault between disparate enterprises enabling flawed AI. Beyond protecting patients and practitioners, enhanced governance can boost investor confidence in Ghana’s AI healthcare ecosystem. Ultimately astute reforms today can reinforce innovation gains tomorrow across a more ethical, accountable industry.
研究加纳《2013 年卫生专业监管机构法》(第 857 号法案),以确定该法是否足以管理人工智能在医疗保健服务和医疗过失问题中的应用
本分析报告研究了加纳的《2013 年卫生专业监管机构法》(第 857 号法案),以评估其是否适合管理人工智能(AI)在重塑医疗保健服务方面的崛起。随着先进算法对人类判断的补充或替代,以个人从业者责任为中心的过时法律难以应对新出现的过失复杂性。第 857 号法案缺乏专门的条款来管理这一新时代,而不局限于过时的以人为中心的医疗模式假设。随着人工智能预计将改变医学,积极主动的改革似乎对实现创新成果同时维护问责制至关重要。本文通过 IRAC 法律分析视角,辅以从美国到加纳的判例法,展示了全球司法机构如何在自主医疗技术日益发展的情况下,阐明法律不确定性带来的风险。研究结果揭示了在算法活动造成患者伤害的情况下,阻碍公平获得补救的治理漏洞。呼吁在部署风险较高的人工智能系统之前进行严格的培训、验证和监控,这表明有必要重新制定护理标准。本文提出了使第 857 号法案及相关法规现代化的详细建议,涵盖从业人员守则、产品安全、持续评估职责,以及至关重要的更新责任规则,即在促成人工智能缺陷的不同企业之间分摊过失。除了保护患者和从业人员,加强管理还能增强投资者对加纳人工智能医疗生态系统的信心。最终,今天精明的改革可以巩固明天在一个更有道德、更负责任的行业中取得的创新成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信