Dental Protection urges Government to address AI liability gap
Amid growing concerns that clinicians, including dental professionals, may pay the price
Dental Protection has urged the UK Government to address what it describes as the widening gap between the law and the rapidly evolving use of AI in healthcare amid growing concerns that clinicians, including dental professionals, may pay the price.
In a new report – Closing the AI Liability Gap – Dental Protection warns that under the existing product liability framework, clinicians using AI systems – particularly those suggesting diagnoses and treatment plans – are at risk of absorbing all legal responsibility if a patient comes to harm, even if harm arises due to a defective AI system.
This is because AI systems are not clearly defined as ‘products’ – meaning that developers, manufacturers and suppliers of AI tools, may be shielded from the liability rules that would usually apply if a defective product caused harm.
Dental Protection described the current framework as “inequitable” and potentially leaving clinicians, including dental professionals, unfairly exposed to clinical negligence claims.
It has called on the UK Government to introduce legislation which clearly classifies AI systems as products. Such a change would distribute responsibility for harm caused by defective systems more fairly – rather than placing it solely on clinicians through clinical negligence claims.
Dr George Wright, Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “AI provides huge opportunities to transform how we deliver dental care and this will only increase over time. The law, however, is struggling to keep pace with the rapid pace of technological change.
“The Consumer Protection Act 1987was never designed with AI in mind. As a result, those who develop, manufacture and supply AI systems may end up being shielded from the liability rules that would ordinarily apply if a defective product causes harm.
“This makes it difficult for patients to bring product liability claims against these parties if harm occurs. The default could therefore be to pursue clinicians, as the end users of the AI, through a clinical negligence claim.
“If harm arises from a defective AI system, legal responsibility should be distributed fairly. Clear, shared liability would not only better protect clinicians, but it would also build trust, encourage uptake of AI, and incentivise developers to prioritise safety from the outset. The Government must address this issue.
“At Dental Protection, we remain committed to helping our members and their patients realise the potential benefits of AI, while providing advice and support to manage emerging risks. We are equally focused on ensuring that AI tools – and the legal frameworks that underpin them – work fairly and effectively for those using them, and we will continue to advocate on this issue on behalf of our members.”
Last year, Dental Protection launched the AI Safer Practice Framework to help dental professionals integrate AI safely and responsibly into practice. The framework, designed by Raj Rattan, Global Adviser at Dental Protection, comprises two parts – INFORMED and RECORDS – and has been structured around these acronyms for ease of use.