๐๐ซ๐จ๐ก๐ข๐๐ข๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐ญ
๐ฃ Now out in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ก๐ข๐๐ข๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐ญ
Much of the discussion around the EU AI Act has focused on high-risk AI systems. But the Act also contains something even stronger: it prohibits certain AI practices altogether because they are considered fundamentally incompatible with fundamental rights. What does that mean for healthcare?
In this paper, I examine how the AI Act's prohibited practices under Article 5 apply to healthcare and public health, drawing on the European Commission's 2025 Guidelines. I argue that while these prohibitions provide important protections for patients and other vulnerable groups, the Act's medical and safety exceptions also raise difficult legal and ethical questions. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in health systems, the question is not only how to regulate AI, but also which uses of AI should never be acceptable in healthcare.
๐ Read more (open access): https://lnkd.in/e-DjnUvV
Zentrum fรผr Life Sciences-Recht (ZLSR) | Juristische Fakultรคt der Universitรคt Basel | American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics