Could Artificial Intelligence (AI) replace doctors?
As automation and AI advance, many jobs are increasingly becoming redundant. Computer programs now outperform humans in information gathering, factory work, driving, and more. Doctors, though universally demanded and elaborately trained, perform many tasks AI is more robust at. So, could AI replace doctors? I explore the opposing arguments.
Yes — Jörg Goldhahn
The head of the Institute of Translational Medicine at ETH Zurich, Jörg Goldhahn, argues AI will replace doctors. AI systems simulate human intelligence by learning, reasoning, and self-correcting rapidly. They are more accurate than physicians at making diagnoses in radiology, dermatology, and intensive care, at generating prognostic models, and at performing surgical interventions.
In 2017, a robot passed China’s national medical exam, exceeding the minimum required by 96 points. AI systems continually integrate new knowledge from personal monitoring devices, electronic medical records, and social media platforms to have as complete a picture as possible of people’s health over their life and their disease(s).
Physicians can’t compare to the vast data-munging and insight-ingesting capabilities AI offers. Natural Language Processing (NLP) enables systems to rapidly read the burgeoning scientific literature and further teach themselves, for example, about drug interactions. Additionally, AI could be cheaper than hiring and training new physicians. This will help meet the growing demand for doctors aiding the under-supply.
The patient’s perception of trust in the doctor is important. This trust can be transferred over to an AI doctor. AI, when systematically reviewed, can be less biased than human doctors, and diagnose more accurately. Even patients who crave interaction, such as those with serious or terminal diagnoses, may find that their needs are better met by intelligent conversational agents.
No — Vanessa Rampton
Vanessa Rampton, an ETH Zurich fellow, disagrees. She says that although AI systems will augment doctors’ capabilities, they will never replace them. She argues that physicians will remain better at dealing with the patient as a whole person, which involves knowledge of social relationships and norms.
Humans can relate to the patient as a fellow person and gain holistic knowledge of the patient’s illness as related to his or her life. Such understanding involves trust, respect, courage, and responsibility, which are not easily accessible to machines.
The use of AI in medicine, predicated on the belief that symptoms are measurable, reaches its limits when confronted with the emotional, social, and non-quantifiable factors that contribute to illness. It can be crucial for patients to feel that they have been heard by someone who understands the seriousness of the problem and whom they can trust.
She argues that robots cannot understand our concern with relating illness to the task of living a life, which is related to the human context and subjective factors of disease. Coping with illness often does not include curing illness, and here doctors are irreplaceable.