Medical Liability in the Eritrean Context

Breaking the limits of the risks for the human body, health or even the life of the patient, as assumed by the pharmaceutical producers, by using a drug off label, for its side effects, in another purpose or even against the purpose for which the drug was authorized by the National Agency of Medicine and Medical Devices, is not in itself illegal if the off label use has the common consent of both the doctor and the patient for a treatment and only for a treatment which, although a spread procedure, has little or no scientific support. But if the patient is subjected to unreasonable risks, endangering his body, health or life beyond the possible benefits of the treatment, without being informed about the lack of scientific support, the doctor is liable not only for malpractice (civil medical liability) but also for a criminal offence.

Download Full-text

A survey of clinicians on the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology, dermatology, radiology and radiation oncology

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-84698-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jane Scheetz ◽

Philip Rothschild ◽

Myra McGuinness ◽

Xavier Hadoux ◽

H. Peter Soyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

New Zealand ◽

Radiation Oncology ◽

Online Survey ◽

New Technology ◽

Medical Liability ◽

Healthcare Outcomes ◽

Medical Workforce ◽

Artificial Intelligence Technology ◽

Workforce Needs

AbstractArtificial intelligence technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and has the potential to improve healthcare outcomes. However, technology uptake will be largely driven by clinicians, and there is a paucity of data regarding the attitude that clinicians have to this new technology. In June–August 2019 we conducted an online survey of fellows and trainees of three specialty colleges (ophthalmology, radiology/radiation oncology, dermatology) in Australia and New Zealand on artificial intelligence. There were 632 complete responses (n = 305, 230, and 97, respectively), equating to a response rate of 20.4%, 5.1%, and 13.2% for the above colleges, respectively. The majority (n = 449, 71.0%) believed artificial intelligence would improve their field of medicine, and that medical workforce needs would be impacted by the technology within the next decade (n = 542, 85.8%). Improved disease screening and streamlining of monotonous tasks were identified as key benefits of artificial intelligence. The divestment of healthcare to technology companies and medical liability implications were the greatest concerns. Education was identified as a priority to prepare clinicians for the implementation of artificial intelligence in healthcare. This survey highlights parallels between the perceptions of different clinician groups in Australia and New Zealand about artificial intelligence in medicine. Artificial intelligence was recognized as valuable technology that will have wide-ranging impacts on healthcare.

Download Full-text