Against the iDoctor: why artificial intelligence should not replace physician judgment

Area of Science:

• Medical Informatics
• Philosophy of Technology
• Artificial Intelligence Ethics

Background:

• Medical informatics experts advocate for increased use of machine learning algorithms in healthcare.
• Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) raise questions about the future role of primary care physicians, with the concept of an "iDoctor" emerging.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the impact of algorithmic approaches in medicine on the physician-patient relationship using Heidegger's critique of technology.
• To argue against the complete replacement of human physician judgment by AI in primary care.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis drawing on Martin Heidegger's critique of technology.
• Application of Hubert Dreyfus's analysis of artificial intelligence capabilities.
• Examination of the limitations of AI in adapting medical guidelines to individual patient needs.

Main Results:

• Algorithmic medicine risks distorting the essential physician-patient relationship.
• AI struggles to individualize care, as it cannot inherently attune to a patient's unique history and physical exam findings.
• Human physicians' perceptual attunement to patients is a critical, uniquely human skill.

Conclusions:

• Despite AI advancements, human physician judgment remains superior for primary care practice.
• The nuanced, individualized care essential in primary care cannot be fully replicated by current or foreseeable AI.
• Preserving the physician-patient relationship necessitates retaining human judgment in medical decision-making.