首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Against the iDoctor: why artificial intelligence should not replace physician judgment
Authors:Kyle?E.?Karches  author-information"  >  author-information__contact u-icon-before"  >  mailto:kyle.karches@health.slu.edu"   title="  kyle.karches@health.slu.edu"   itemprop="  email"   data-track="  click"   data-track-action="  Email author"   data-track-label="  "  >Email author  author-information__orcid u-icon-before icon--orcid u-icon-no-repeat"  >  http://orcid.org/---"   itemprop="  url"   title="  View OrcID profile"   target="  _blank"   rel="  noopener"   data-track="  click"   data-track-action="  OrcID"   data-track-label="  "  >View author&#  s OrcID profile
Affiliation:1.Department of Internal Medicine,Saint Louis University Hospital,Saint Louis,USA
Abstract:Experts in medical informatics have argued for the incorporation of ever more machine-learning algorithms into medical care. As artificial intelligence (AI) research advances, such technologies raise the possibility of an “iDoctor,” a machine theoretically capable of replacing the judgment of primary care physicians. In this article, I draw on Martin Heidegger’s critique of technology to show how an algorithmic approach to medicine distorts the physician–patient relationship. Among other problems, AI cannot adapt guidelines according to the individual patient’s needs. In response to the objection that AI could develop this capacity, I use Hubert Dreyfus’s analysis of AI to argue that attention to the needs of each patient requires the physician to attune his or her perception to the patient’s history and physical exam, an ability that seems uniquely human. Human physician judgment will remain better suited to the practice of primary care despite anticipated advances in AI technology.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号