Cover des Buchs: Artificial Intelligence, Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

Artificial Intelligence, Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent

Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2024

Zusammenfassung

Der medizinische Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) schreitet rasant voran und droht die Fähigkeit von Patienten zu untergraben, personalisierte Entscheidungen zu treffen. Diese Arbeit hinterfragt, inwieweit zwei Rechtsordnungen des Common Law, die britische und die US-amerikanische, dieser Herausforderung für die Patientenautonomie begegnen können. Durch eine vorausschauende Analyse werden dabei die problematischen Eigenheiten klinischer KI herausgearbeitet und die Lösungen antizipiert, welche sich aus den Normen der informierten Einwilligung ergeben. Aufgrund dieser Beurteilung wird ein konkreter Regulierungsvorschlag für medizinische KI vorgestellt und die zentrale Rolle des Rechts in der Steuerung innovativer Technologien betont.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Auflage
1/2024
Copyrightjahr
2024
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-2239-7
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-4891-9
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Studien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Sozialrecht und Sozialpolitik
Band
81
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
433
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 24 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. Problem statement
      1. A. Comparative method
      2. B. Scope of inquiry
        1. 1. Instrumentality of law
        2. 2. Technological dynamism and legal inertia
        3. 3. Desirability of non-legal regulation
        4. 4. Summation
      4. D. Research question
    3. III. State of the art
    4. IV. Outlook and structure
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
        1. A. Definition
        2. B. Machine learning: the underlying technology
          1. 1. Sub-symbolic functioning
          2. 2. The training process
          3. 3. Data and performance evaluation
          4. 4. Summary
        1. A. Devices complementing human expertise
        2. B. Devices (partially) replacing pre-existing cognitive capabilities
        3. C. Devices determining dimensions of clinical decision-making
        1. A. Prevalent types of opacity
          1. 1. Explainability
          2. 2. Interpretability
          3. 3. Evaluation
        1. A. Choices in the use of ML devices
        2. B. User knowledge of ML devices
        3. C. ML influence
      5. V. Conclusion
        1. A. Decisional autonomy
        2. B. Practical autonomy
        3. C. Summation
        1. A. The need to form true beliefs about AI’s goal-directed action
        2. B. Theoretical rationality and changes in human-AI expertise
          1. 1. General risk characteristics of AI
            1. i. AI nudging
            2. ii. Impermissible manipulation
      3. III. Conclusion
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. I. Scope
      2. II. Function
        1. A. Rationality
        2. B. Individual reflection
        3. C. Positive and negative freedom
      4. IV. Limitations
      5. V. Conclusion
        1. A. Jurisdictional scope
        2. B. Conceptual scope
      2. II. Function
        1. A. Rationality
        2. B. Individual reflection
        3. C. Positive and negative freedom
      4. IV. Limitations
      5. V. Conclusion
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
        1. A. Limitations flowing from the battery doctrine
          1. 1. Nature of the procedure
          2. 2. Identity of the professional
          3. 3. Non-therapeutic motivations
        3. C. Summation
          1. 1. Personal injury
            1. i. The nature of the award
            2. ii. The autonomy interest
          3. 3. Summation
          1. 1. Medical professionals
          2. 2. Healthcare institutions
          3. 3. Summation
            1. i. The meaning of reasonable disclosure
            2. ii. The operationalisation of reasonable disclosure
            3. iii. Summation
            1. i. Specific risks
            2. ii. Risk-relevant status
          3. 3. Alterations of expertise
            1. i. Understanding choices
            2. ii. AI’s lesser influence on the pursuit of objectives
          5. 5. Summation
        4. D. Causation
        5. E. Awarding damages
      3. III. The UK General Data Protection Regulation
      4. IV. Conclusion
          1. 1. Contact
          2. 2. Unlawful nature
          3. 3. Intention
          4. 4. Summation
            1. i. Physical nature of the procedure
            2. ii. Identity of the professional
            3. iii. Non-therapeutic motivations
          2. 2. Conditional consent
        3. C. Summation
          1. 1. Personal injury
          2. 2. Autonomy interest
          3. 3. Emotional distress
          4. 4. Summation
          1. 1. Medical professionals
          2. 2. Healthcare institutions
          3. 3. Summation
            1. i. The meaning of reasonable disclosure
            2. ii. The operationalisation of reasonable disclosure
            3. iii. Summation
            1. i. Specific risks
            2. ii. Risk-relevant status
          3. 3. Alterations to expertise
            1. i. Understanding choices
            2. ii. AI’s lesser influence on the pursuit of objectives
          5. 5. Summation
        4. D. Causation
        5. E. Awarding damages
      3. III. Conclusion
            1. i. Risk-relevant characteristics
            2. ii. Goal-directed action by AI
            3. iii. Human-AI expertise
            4. iv. Informational manipulation
          2. 2. Non-informational requirements
          1. 1. Informational requirements for valid consent
          2. 2. Non-informational requirements
        3. C. Conclusion
          1. 1. United Kingdom
          2. 2. California
          3. 3. Rationale
        2. B. An informed consent statute for AI
        1. A. Understated challenges of non-legal regulation
        2. B. The significance of law’s resistance to instrumentalisation
        3. C. Law’s nuanced normative dynamism
      4. IV. Conclusion
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. Literature
    2. II. Material

Literaturverzeichnis (476)

  1. Bibliography Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  2. I. Literature Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  3. Abràmoff Michael D., Lavin Philip T., Birch Michele and others, ‘Pivotal Trial of an Autonomous AI-Based Diagnostic System for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Primary Care Offices’ (2018) 1 NPJ Digital Medicine, 1–8. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  4. Ackerman Bruce A., ‘The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution’ (1984) 93(6) The Yale Law Journal, 1013–1072. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  5. Afnan Michael A. M., Liu Yanhe, Conitzer Vincent and others, ‘Interpretable, Not Black-Box, Artificial Intelligence Should Be Used for Embryo Selection’ [2021](4) Human Reproduction Open, 1–8. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  6. Alberdi Eugenio, Povykalo Andrey, Strigini Lorenzo and others, ‘Effects of Incorrect Computer-Aided Detection (Cad) Output on Human Decision-Making in Mammography’ (2004) 11(8) Academic Radiology, 909–918. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  7. Allenby Braden R., ‘Governance and Technology Systems: The Challenge of Emerging Technologies’ in Marchant, Allenby and Herkert, The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem (Springer Netherlands 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  8. Alon-Barkat Saar and Busuioc Madalina, ‘Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: ‘Automation Bias’ and ‘Selective Adherence’ to Algorithmic Advice’ (2023) 33(1) Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 153–169. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  9. Alpaydin Ethem, Machine Learning (Revised Edition, The MIT Press 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  10. Amirthalingam Kumaralingam, ‘Causation and the Gist of Negligence’ (2005) 64(1) The Cambridge Law Journal, 32–35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  11. Andorno R., ‘The Right Not to Know: An Autonomy Based Approach’ (2004) 30(5) Journal of Medical Ethics, 435-9. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  12. Angus Derek C., ‘Randomized Clinical Trials of Artificial Intelligence’ [2020](11) The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1043–1045. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  13. Appelbaum Paul S., Lidz Charles W. and Meisel Alan, Informed consent: Legal theory and clinical practice (Second Edition, Oxford University Press 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  14. Arabian Armand, ‘Informed Consent: From the Ambivalence of Arato to the Thunder of Thor’ (1994) 10(3) Issues in Law & Medicine, 261–298. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  15. Ard B. J., ‘Making Sense of Legal Disruption’ (2022) Forward Wisconsin Law Review, 42–63. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  16. Armitage Mark, Charlesworth John and Percy Rodney A. Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Fifteenth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2022). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  17. Arvind T. T. and McMahon Aisling M., ‘Responsiveness and the Role of Rights in Medical Law: Lessons from Montgomery’ (2020) 28(3) Medical Law Review, 445–477. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  18. Askland Andrew, ‘Introduction: Why Law and Ethics Need to Keep Pace with Emerging Technologies’ in Marchant, Allenby and Herkert, The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem (Springer Netherlands 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  19. Austin Louise, ‘Correia, Diamond and the Chester Exception: Vindicating Patient Autonomy?’ (2021) 29(3) Medical Law Review, 547–561. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  20. Austin Louise, ‘Grimstone v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust: (It's Not) Hip to Be Square’ (2018) 26(4) Medical Law Review, 665–674. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  21. Azevedo Cunha Mario V. de, Andrade Norberto N. G. de and Lixinski Lucas and others (eds), New Technologies and Human Rights: Challenges to Regulation (Ashgate Publishing 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  22. Balganesh Shyamkrishna and Parchomovsky Gideon, ‘Structure and Value in the Common Law’ (2015) 163(5) University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1241–1310. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  23. Bankowski Zenon, MacCormick Neil and Marshall Geoffrey, ‘Precedent in the United Kingdom’ in MacCormick and Summers, Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study (Routledge 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  24. Barker Kit, Fairweather Karen and Grantham Ross (eds), Private Law in the 21st Century (Hart Publishing 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  25. Baron Jonathan, Rationality and Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  26. Bauer Nadja, Ickstadt Katja and Lübke Karsten and others (eds), Applications in Statistical Computing (Springer International Publishing 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  27. Beauchamp Tom L., ‘The Failure of Theories of Personhood’ (1999) 9(4) Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal, 309–324. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  28. Beauchamp Tom L. and Childress James F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  29. Beck James M. and Azari Elizabeth D., ‘FDA, Off-Label Use, and Informed Consent: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions’ (1998) 53(1) Food and Drug Law Journal, 71–104. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  30. Beck Thorsten, Demirgüç-Kunt Asli and Levine Ross, ‘Law and Finance: Why Does Legal Origin Matter?’ (2003) 31(4) Journal of Comparative Economics, 653–675. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  31. Becker Ulrich, ‘Sozialrecht und Sozialrechtswissenschaft’ (2010) 65(4) Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, 607–652. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  32. Bell John and Ibbetson David, European Legal Development: The Case of Tort (Cambridge University Press 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  33. Benjamens Stan, Dhunnoo Pranavsingh and Meskó Bertalan, ‘The State of Artificial Intelligence-Based FDA-Approved Medical Devices and Algorithms: An Online Database’ (2020) 3 NPJ Digital Medicine. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  34. Bennett Casey C. and Doub Thomas W., ‘Expert Systems in Mental Health Care: AI Applications in Decision-Making and Consultation’ in Luxton, Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care (Elsevier Reference Monographs 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  35. Berkeley Istvan S. N., ‘The Curious Case of Connectionism’ (2019) 2(1) Open Philosophy, 190–205. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  36. Berlin Isaiah and Harris Ian, Liberty (Second Edition, Oxford University Press 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  37. Berman Paul S. (ed), Law and Society Approaches to Cyberspace (Ashgate Publishing 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  38. Binns Reuben, ‘Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason’ (2018) 31(4) Philosophy & Technology, 543–556. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  39. Bjerring Jens C. and Busch Jacob, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Patient-Centered Decision-Making’ (2021) 34(2) Philosophy & Technology, 349–371. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  40. Bloche M. G., ‘The Invention of Health Law’ (2003) 91(1) California Law Review, 247–322. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  41. Bloustein Edward J., ‘Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser’ in Schoeman, Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy (Cambridge University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  42. Blumenthal-Barby Jennifer S. and Naik Aanand D., ‘In Defense of Nudge-Autonomy Compatibility’ (2015) 15(10) The American Journal of Bioethics, 45–47. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  43. Boden Margaret A., ‘GOFAI’ in Frankish and Ramsey, The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  44. Bohr Adam and Memarzadeh Kaveh (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare (Academic Press 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  45. Brajer Nathan, Cozzi Brian, Gao Michael and others, ‘Prospective and External Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality of Adults at Time of Admission’ (2020) 3(2) JAMA Network Open, 1-14. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  46. Braude Hillel D., ‘Skilled Know-How, Virtuosity, and Expertise in Clinical Practice’ in Schramme and Edwards, Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine (Springer Netherlands 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  47. Brazier Margaret and Cave Emma, Medicine, Patients and the Law (Sixth Edition, Manchester University Press 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  48. Brazier Margaret and Lobjoit Mary, ‘Fiduciary Relationship: An Ethical Approach and a Legal Concept?’ in Erin and Bennett, HIV and AIDS: Testing, Screening, and Confidentiality (Oxford University Press 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  49. Brazier Margaret, ‘Patient Autonomy and Consent to Treatment: The Role of the Law,’ (1987) 7(2) Legal Studies, 169–193. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  50. Brownsword Roger, ‘An Interest in Human Dignity as the Basis for Genomic Torts’ (2003) 42(3) Washburn Law Journal, 413–488. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  51. Brownsword Roger, ‘Law Disrupted, Law Re-Imagined, Law Re-Invented’ (2019) 1 Technology and Regulation, 10–30. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  52. Brownsword Roger, Law 3.0: Rules, Regulation, and Technology (Routledge 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  53. Brownsword Roger, Rights, Regulation, and the Technological Revolution (Oxford University Press 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  54. Brownsword Roger and Somsen Han, ‘Law, Innovation and Technology: Fast Forward to 2021’ (2021) 13(1) Law, Innovation and Technology, 1–28. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  55. Brownsword Roger and Yeung Karen (eds), Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes (Hart Publishing 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  56. Brownsword Roger, Scotford Eloise and Yeung Karen (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (Oxford University Press 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  57. Buckner Cameron, ‘Deep learning: A Philosophical Introduction’ (2019) 14(10) Philosophy Compass, 1–19. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  58. Bumgarner Joseph M., Lambert Cameron T., Hussein Ayman A. and others, ‘Smartwatch Algorithm for Automated Detection of Atrial Fibrillation’ (2018) 71(21) Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2381–2388. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  59. Bunnik Eline M., Jong Antina de, Nijsingh Niels and others, ‘The New Genetics and Informed Consent: Differentiating Choice to Preserve Autonomy’ (2013) 27(6) Bioethics, 348–355. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  60. Burrell Jenna, ‘How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms’ (2016) 3(1) Big Data & Society, 1–12. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  61. Byrne Peter (ed), Rights and Wrongs in Medicine (Oxford University Press 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  62. Calabresi Guido, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes (Harvard University Press 1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  63. California Jurisprudence (Third Edition, Bancroft-Whitney 2022). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  64. Cane Peter, ‘Rights in Private Law’ in Nolan and Robertson, Rights and Private Law (Hart Publishing 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  65. Carvalho Diogo V., Pereira Eduardo M. and Cardoso Jaime S., ‘Machine Learning Interpretability: A Survey on Methods and Metrics’ (2019) 8(8) Electronics, 832. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  66. Chan Tracey E., ‘Legal and Regulatory Responses to Innovative Treatment’ (2013) 21(1) Medical Law Review, 92–130. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  67. Chang Anthony, ‘The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Health’ in Wulfovich and Meyers, Digital Health Entrepreneurship (Springer Cham 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  68. Chico Victoria, Genomic Torts: The English Tort Regime and Novel Grievances (Routledge 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  69. Chillag Nancy A., ‘Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress as an Independent Cause of Action in California: Do Defendants Face Unlimited Liability’ (1982) 22(1) Santa Clara Law Review, 181–210. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  70. Christman John, ‘Autonomy and Personal History’ (1991) 21(1) Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1–24. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  71. Clark T. and Nolan D., ‘A Critique of Chester v Afshar’ (2014) 34(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 659–692. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  72. Cockburn Tina and Fay Michael, ‘Consent to Innovative Treatment’ (2019) 11(1) Law, Innovation and Technology, 34–54. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  73. Cockfield Arthur J., ‘Towards a Law and Technology Theory’ (2003) 30(3) Manitoba Law Journal, 383–416. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  74. Cockfield Arthur and Pridmore Jason, ‘A Synthetic Theory of Law and Technology’ (2007) 8(2) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 475–513. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  75. Coggon John, ‘Varied and Principled Understandings of Autonomy in English Law: Justifiable Inconsistency or Blinkered Moralism?’ (2007) 15(3) Health Care Analysis: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 235–255. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  76. Cohen Felix S., ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’ (1935) 35(6) Columbia Law Review, 809–849. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  77. Cohen I. G., ‘Informed Consent and Medical Artificial Intelligence: What to Tell the Patient?’ (2020) 108(6) The Georgetown Law Journal, 1425–1470. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  78. Cohen I. G., Amarasingham Ruben, Shah Anand and others, ‘The Legal and Ethical Concerns That Arise From Using Complex Predictive Analytics in Health Care’ (2014) 33(7) Health Affairs (Project Hope), 1139–1147. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  79. Coyle Casey A., ‘Gonzales v. Carhart: Justice Kennedy at the Intersection of Life Interests, Medical Practice and Government Regulations Comment’ (2008) 27(2) Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 291–314. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  80. Crootof Rebecca and Ard B. J., ‘Structuring Techlaw’ (2021) 34(2) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 347–418. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  81. Cross Rupert, Precedent in English law (Third Edition, Clarendon Press 1979). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  82. Curchoe Carol L., Flores-Saiffe Farias Adolfo, Mendizabal-Ruiz Gerardo and others, ‘Evaluating Predictive Models in Reproductive Medicine’ (2020) 114(5) Fertility and Sterility, 921–926. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  83. Currie David P., ‘Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights’ (1986) 53(3) The University of Chicago Law Review, 864–890. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  84. Custers Bart and Heijne Anne-Sophie, ‘The Right of Access in Automated Decision-Making: The Scope of Article 15(1)(h) GDPR in Theory and Practice’ (2022) 46 Computer Law & Security Review, 105727. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  85. Daly Erin, ‘Reconsidering Abortion Law: Liberty, Equality, and the New Rhetoric of Planned Parenthood v. Casey’ (1995) 45(1) American University Law Review, 77–150. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  86. Davenport Thomas H. and Glaser John P., ‘Factors Governing the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Providers’ (2022) 1(1) Discover Health Systems. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  87. Davies Simon J., Vistisen Simon T., Jian Zhongping and others, ‘Ability of an Arterial Waveform Analysis-Derived Hypotension Prediction Index to Predict Future Hypotensive Events in Surgical Patients’ (2020) 130(2) Anesthesia and Analgesia, 352–359. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  88. Deakin Simon, ‘Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability Versus Non-Delegable Duty’ (2018) 77(1) The Cambridge Law Journal, 15–18. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  89. Debrabander Jasper and Mertes Heidi, ‘Watson, Autonomy and Value Flexibility: Revisiting the Debate’ [2021] Journal of Medical Ethics, 1043–1047. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  90. Deo Rahul C., ‘Machine Learning in Medicine’ (2015) 132(20) Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 1920–1930. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  91. Di Nucci Ezio, ‘Should We Be Afraid of Medical AI?’ (2019) 45(8) Journal of Medical Ethics, 556–558. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  92. Dillon John J., DeSimone Christopher V., Sapir Yehu and others, ‘Noninvasive Potassium Determination Using a Mathematically Processed ECG: Proof of Concept for a Novel “Blood-Less, Blood Test”’ (2015) 48(1) Journal of Electrocardiology, 12–18. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  93. Dobbs Dan B., Hayden Paul T. and Bublick Ellen M., Dobbs' Law of Torts: Practitioner Treatise Series (Second Edition, Thomson West 2022). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  94. Donnelly Mary, Healthcare Decision-Making and the Law: Autonomy, Capacity and the Limits of Liberalism (Cambridge University Press 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  95. Donovan Mary, ‘Is the Injury Requirement Obsolete in a Claim for Fear of Future Consequences’ (1993) 41(5) UCLA Law Review, 1337–1396. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  96. Dror Yehezkel, ‘Law and Social Change 1958-1959’ (1959) 33(4) Tulane Law Review, 787–802. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  97. Dube Simant, An Intuitive Exploration of Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Applications of Deep Learning (Springer International Publishing 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  98. Dunn Michael, Fulford K. W. M., Herring Jonathan and others, ‘Between the Reasonable and the Particular: Deflating Autonomy in the Legal Regulation of Informed Consent to Medical Treatment’ (2019) 27(2) Health Care Analysis: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 110–127. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  99. Duxbury Neil, ‘The Law of the Land’ (2015) 78(1) The Modern Law Review, 26–54. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  100. Dworkin Gerald, ‘The Nature of Autonomy’, The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (Cambridge University Press 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  101. Dworkin Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth 1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  102. Eisenberg Melvin A., The Nature of the Common Law (Harvard University Press 1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  103. Ekstrom Laura W., ‘A Coherence Theory of Autonomy’ (1993) 53(3) Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 599–616. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  104. Epstein Richard A., ‘The Static Conception of the Common Law: Legal and Economic Perspectives’ (1980) 9(2) The Journal of Legal Studies, 253–275. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  105. Erb Randall J., ‘Introduction to Backpropagation Neural Network Computation’ (1993) 10(2) Pharmaceutical Research, 165–170. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  106. Erin Charles A. and Bennett Rebecca (eds), HIV and AIDS: Testing, Screening, and Confidentiality (Oxford University Press 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  107. Ezra David B., ‘Smoker Battery: An Antidote to Second-Hand Smoke’ (1989) 63(4) Southern California Law Review, 1061–1112. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  108. Faden Ruth R., King Nancy M. P. and Beauchamp Tom L., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (Oxford University Press 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  109. Farber Daniel A. and Frickey Philip P., ‘In the Shadow of the Legislature: The Common Law in the Age of the New Public Law’ (1991) 89(4) Michigan Law Review, 875–906. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  110. Feng Tan K., ‘Failure of Medical Advice: Trespass or Negligence?’ (1987) 7(2) Legal Studies, 149–168. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  111. Fischer John M. and Ravizza Mark, Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (Cambridge University Press 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  112. Foster Charles, Choosing Life, Choosing Death: The Tyranny of Autonomy in Medical Ethics and Law (Hart Publishing 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  113. Frankfurt Harry G., ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’ (1971) 68(1) The Journal of Philosophy, 5–20. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  114. Frankish Keith and Ramsey William M. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  115. Freeman Karoline, Geppert Julia, Stinton Chris and others, ‘Use of Artificial Intelligence for Image Analysis in Breast Cancer Screening Programmes: Systematic Review of Test Accuracy’ (2021) 374 BMJ (Clinical Research Edition), 1-15. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  116. Friedman Lawrence M., Law and Society: An Introduction (Prentice-Hall 1977). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  117. Friedman Lawrence M. and Ladinsky Jack, ‘Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents’ (1967) 67(1) Columbia Law Review, 50–82. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  118. Froese Tom and Ziemke Tom, ‘Enactive Artificial Intelligence: Investigating the Systemic Organization of Life and Mind’ (2009) 173(3-4) Artificial Intelligence, 466–500. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  119. Fuller Lon L., ‘Means and Ends’ in Winston, The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller (Revised Edition. Hart Publishing 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  120. Funer Florian, ‘Accuracy and Interpretability: Struggling with the Epistemic Foundations of Machine Learning-Generated Medical Information and Their Practical Implications for the Doctor-Patient Relationship’ (2022) 35(1) Philosophy & Technology. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  121. Funer Florian, ‘The Deception of Certainty: How Non-Interpretable Machine Learning Outcomes Challenge the Epistemic Authority of Physicians’ (2022) 25(2) Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 167–178. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  122. Gaille Marie and Horn Ruth, ‘Solidarity and Autonomy: Two Conflicting Values in English and French Health Care and Bioethics Debates?’ (2016) 37(6) Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 441–446. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  123. Gardner John, Torts and Other Wrongs (Oxford University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  124. Garg Amit X. Adhikari Neill K. J. McDonald Heather and others, ‘Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review’ (2005) 293(10) The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1223–1238. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  125. Gatter Robert, ‘The Mysterious Survival of the Policy against Informed Consent Liability for Hospitals’ (2006) 81(4) Notre Dame Law Review, 1203–1274. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  126. Gerke Sara, Minssen Timo and Cohen Glenn, ‘Ethical and Legal Challenges of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Healthcare’ in Bohr and Memarzadeh, Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare (Academic Press 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  127. Gilmore Grant, ‘Legal Realism: Its Cause and Cure’ (1961) 70(7) The Yale Law Journal, 1037–1048. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  128. Giuffrida Luisa A., ‘Moore v. Regents of the University of California: Doctor, Tell Me Moore’ (1991) 23(1) Pacific Law Journal, 267–314. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  129. Goddard Kate, Roudsari Abdul and Wyatt Jeremy C., ‘Automation Bias: A Systematic Review of Frequency, Effect Mediators, and Mitigators’ (2012) 19(1) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 121–127. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  130. Goebelsmann Christina L., ‘Putting Ethics and Traditional Legal Principles Back into California Tort Law: Barring Wrongful-Birth Liability in Preimplantation Genetic Testing Cases’ (2010) 43(2) Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 667–692. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  131. Goertzel Ben and Pennachin Cassio (eds), Artificial General Intelligence (Springer 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  132. Gold Stephanie S., ‘An Equality Approach to Wrongful Birth Statutes’ (1996) 65(3) Fordham Law Review, 1005–1041. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  133. Goldberg John C. and Zipursky Benjamin, ‘Torts as Wrongs’ (2010) 88(5) Texas Law Review, 917–986. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  134. Goldberg Richard (ed), Medicinal Product Liability and Regulation (Hart Publishing 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  135. Goodhart Arthur L., ‘Case Law in England and America’ (1930) 15(2) Cornell Law Review, 173–193. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  136. Goodman Bryce and Flaxman Seth, ‘European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a “Right to Explanation”’ (2017) 38(3) AI Magazine, 50–57. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  137. Goodwin Jean, ‘Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts’ (2011) 25(3) Argumentation, 285–296. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  138. Grattet Ryken, ‘Sociological Perspectives on Legal Change: The Role of the Legal Field in the Transformation of the Common Law of Industrial Accidents’ (1997) 21(3) Social Science History, 359–397. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  139. Green Sarah and Sales Philip, ‘Law, Technology and the Common Law Method in the United Kingdom’ [2023](5) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 205–214. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  140. Grubb Andrew, ‘Battery and Administration of Anaesthetic: Davis v. Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority’ (1993) 1(3) Medical Law Review, 389–391. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  141. Grubb Andrew, ‘Failed Sterilisation: Duty to Provide Adequate Warning’ (1995) 3(3) Medical Law Review, 297–299. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  142. Grubb Andrew and Pearl David S., Blood Testing, AIDS, and DNA Profiling: Law and Policy (Jordan Publishing 1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  143. Grzybowski Andrzej and Brona Piotr, ‘Analysis and Comparison of Two Artificial Intelligence Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Algorithms in a Pilot Study: IDx-DR and Retinalyze’ (2021) 10(11) Journal of Clinical Medicine, 1–8. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  144. Guidotti Riccardo, Monreale Anna, Ruggieri Salvatore and others, ‘A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models’ (2019) 51(5) ACM Computing Surveys, 1–42. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  145. Guihot Michael, ‘Coherence in Technology Law’ (2019) 11(2) Law, Innovation and Technology, 311–342. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  146. Günther Christian M., ‘Legal vs. Extra-Legal Responses to Public Health Emergencies’ (2022) 29(1) European Journal of Health Law, 131–149. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  147. Gutwirth Serge, Hert Paul de and Sutter Laurent de, ‘The Trouble with Technology Regulation: Why Lessig’s ‘Optimal Mix’ Will Not Work’ in Brownsword and Yeung, Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes (Hart Publishing 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  148. Hage Jaap C. and Pfordten Dietmar von der (eds), Concepts in Law (Springer Netherlands 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  149. Hansen Pelle G. and Jespersen Andreas M., ‘Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy’ (2013) 4(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3–28. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  150. Haqq Luke I., ‘The Impact of Roe on Prenatal Tort Litigation: On the Public Policy of Unexpected Children’ (2020) 13(1) Journal of Tort Law, 81–160. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  151. Harris Cailin, ‘Statutory Prohibitions on Wrongful Birth Claims & Their Dangerous Effects on Parents’ (2014) 34(2) Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, 365–396. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  152. Harris Neville (ed), Social Security Law (Oxford University Press 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  153. Harris Neville, ‘The Welfare State, Social Security, and Social Citizenship Rights’ in Harris, Social Security Law (Oxford University Press 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  154. Harrison Kevin and Boyd Tony, The Changing Constitution (Edinburgh University Press 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  155. Hatib Feras, Jian Zhongping, Buddi Sai and others, ‘Machine-learning Algorithm to Predict Hypotension Based on High-fidelity Arterial Pressure Waveform Analysis’ (2018) 129(4) Anesthesiology, 663–674. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  156. Heidenreich Colleen W., ‘Clarifying California's Approach to Claims of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress’ (1995) 30(1) University of San Francisco Law Review, 277–312. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  157. Herring Jonathan, ‘'Choosing Life, Choosing Death, The Tyranny of Autonomy in Medical Ethics and Law, by Charles Foster'’ (2010) 30(2) Legal Studies, 330–333. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  158. Herring Jonathan, Medical Law and Ethics (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  159. Herring Jonathan and Foster Charles, ‘"Please Don't Tell Me": The Right Not to Know’ (2012) 21(1) Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20–29. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  160. Herring Jonathan and Wall Jesse, ‘The Nature and Significance of the Right to Bodily Integrity’ (2017) 76(3) The Cambridge Law Journal, 566–588. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  161. Hervey Matt and Lavy Matthew (eds), The Law of Artificial Intelligence (Sweet & Maxwell 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  162. Heywood Rob and Miola José, ‘The Changing Face of Pre-operative Medical Disclosure: Placing the Patient at the Heart of the Matter’ (2017) 133((Apr)) Law Quarterly Review, 296–321. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  163. Hildebrandt Mireille, Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  164. Hinkle Rachael K. and Nelson Michael J., ‘The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century’ (2016) 16(4) State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 391–410. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  165. Hoeren Thomas and Maurice Niehoff, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnoses and the Right to Explanation’ (2018) 4(3) European Data Protection Law Review, 308–319. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  166. Hoffmann-Riem Wolfgang, Innovation und Recht - Recht und Innovation: Recht im Ensemble seiner Kontexte (Mohr Siebeck 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  167. Hohmann Hanns, ‘The Nature of the Common Law and the Comparative Study of Legal Reasoning’ (1990) 38(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law, 143–170. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  168. Holley Kerrie and Becker Siupo, AI-First Healthcare: AI Applications in the Business and Clinical Management of Health (O'Reilly 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  169. Holmes Jr. Oliver W., The Common Law (Little, Brown and Company 1881). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  170. Hornung Gerrit, Grundrechtsinnovationen (Mohr Siebeck 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  171. Hosseini Mohammad-Parsa, Lu Senbao, Kamaraj Kavin and others, ‘Deep Learning Architectures’ in Pedrycz and Chen, Deep Learning: Concepts and Architectures (Springer International Publishing 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  172. Hostiuc Sorin (ed), Clinical Ethics at the Crossroads of Genetic and Reproductive Technologies (Elsevier 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  173. Hostiuc Sorin, ‘Predictive Genetic Testing in Multifactorial Disorders’ in Hostiuc, Clinical Ethics at the Crossroads of Genetic and Reproductive Technologies (Elsevier 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  174. Humphreys Paul, ‘The Philosophical Novelty of Computer Simulation Methods’ (2009) 169(3) Synthese, 615–626. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  175. Hyun Insoo, ‘Authentic Values and Individual Autonomy’ (2001) 35(2) The Journal of Value Inquiry, 195–208. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  176. Igual Laura and Seguí Santi (eds), Introduction to Data Science (Springer International Publishing 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  177. Igual Laura and Seguí Santi, ‘Unsupervised Learning’ in Igual and Seguí, Introduction to Data Science (Springer International Publishing 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  178. Iheukwumere Emmanuel O., ‘Doctor, Are You Experienced? The Relevance of Disclosure of Physician Experience to a Valid Informed Consent’ (2002) 18(2) The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 373–419. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  179. Jackson Emily, ‘‘Informed Consent' to Medical Treatment and the Impotence of Tort’ in McLean, First Do No Harm (Routledge 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  180. Johns Margaret Z., ‘Informed Consent: Requiring Doctors to Disclose Off-Label Prescriptions and Conflicts of Interest’ (2007) 58(5) Hastings Law Journal, 967–1024. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  181. Johnson Richard and Yi Zhu Yuan (eds), Sceptical Perspectives on the Changing Constitution of the United Kingdom (Hart Publishing 2023). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  182. Jolliffe I. T., Principal Component Analysis (Second Edition, Springer New York 2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  183. Jones Meg L., ‘Does Technology Drive Law? The Dilemma of Technological Exceptionalism in Cyberlaw’ [2018](2) University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 249–284. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  184. Jones Michael, Medical Negligence (Sixth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  185. Kähler Lorenz, ‘Norm, Code, Digitalisat’ in Kuhli and Rostalski, Normentheorie im digitalen Zeitalter (Nomos 2023). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  186. Kaminski Margot E., ‘Technological "Disruption" of the Law's Imagined Scene: Some Lessons from Lex Informatica’ (2021) 36(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 883–914. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  187. Kazzazi Fawz, ‘The Automation of Doctors and Machines: A Classification for AI in Medicine (ADAM framework)’ (2021) 8(2) Future Healthcare Journal, 257–262. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  188. Kearl Kurtis J., ‘Turpin v. Sortini: Recognizing the Unsupportable Cause of Action for Wrongful Life’ (1983) 71(4) California Law Review, 1278–1297. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  189. Keating Rebecca and Wright Laura, ‘AI and Professional Liability’ in Hervey and Lavy, The Law of Artificial Intelligence (Sweet & Maxwell 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  190. Kelley Patrick J., ‘Wrongful Life, Wrongful Birth, and Justice in Tort Law’ (1979) Fall(4) Washington University Law Quarterly, 919–964. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  191. Kellmeyer Philipp, ‘Ethical Issues in the Application of Machine Learning to Brain Disorders’ in Mechelli and Vieira, Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  192. Kelly Christopher J., Karthikesalingam Alan, Suleyman Mustafa and others, ‘Key Challenges for Delivering Clinical Impact with Artificial Intelligence’ (2019) 17(1) BMC Medicine, 1–9. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  193. Kennedy Ian, ‘The Doctor-Patient Relationship’ in Byrne, Rights and Wrongs in Medicine (Oxford University Press 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  194. Kennedy Ian and Grubb Andrew, ‘Testing for HIV Infection: The Legal Framework’ (1989) 86(7) Law Society Gazette, 30-35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  195. Keown John, ‘The Ashes of Aids and the Phoenix of Informed Consent’ (1989) 52(6) The Modern Law Review, 790–800. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  196. Keren-Paz Tsachi, ‘Compensating Injury to Autonomy in English Negligence Law: Inconsistent Recognition’ (2018) 26(4) Medical Law Review, 585–609. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  197. Keren-Paz Tsachi, ‘Compensating Injury to Autonomy: A Conceptual and Normative Analysis’ in Barker, Fairweather and Grantham, Private Law in the 21st Century (Hart Publishing 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  198. Keren-Paz Tsachi, ‘Gender Injustice in Compensating Injury to Autonomy in English and Singaporean Negligence Law’ (2019) 27(1) Feminist Legal Studies, 33–55. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  199. Kiener Maximilian, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and the Disclosure of Risks’ (2020) 36(3) AI & Society, 705–713. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  200. Kim Dohyun, You Sungmin, So Soonwon and others, ‘A Data-Driven Artificial Intelligence Model for Remote Triage in the Prehospital Environment’ (2018) 13(10) PloS One. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  201. King Nancy M. P., ‘The Reasonable Patient and the Healer’ (2015) 50(2) Wake Forest Law Review, 343–362. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  202. Kirby Michael, ‘New Frontier: Regulating Technology by Law and ‘Code’’ in Brownsword and Yeung, Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes (Hart Publishing 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  203. Kirchhoffer David G. and Richards Bernadette J. (eds), Beyond Autonomy (Cambridge University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  204. Krishnan Maya, ‘Against Interpretability: A Critical Examination of the Interpretability Problem in Machine Learning’ (2020) 33(3) Philosophy & Technology, 487–502. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  205. Kudina Olya and Boer Bas de, ‘Co-Designing Diagnosis: Towards a Responsible Integration of Machine Learning Decision-Support Systems in Medical Diagnostics’ (2021) 27(3) Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 529–536. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  206. Kuhli Milan and Rostalski Frauke (eds), Normentheorie im digitalen Zeitalter (Nomos 2023). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  207. Laing Judith M. and McHale Jean V. (eds), Principles of Medical Law (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  208. Landes William M. and Posner Richard A., The Economic Structure of Tort Law (Harvard University Press 1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  209. Lawson Craig, ‘The Family Affinities of Common-Law and Civil-Law Legal Systems’ (1982) 6(1) Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 85–132. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  210. Lebovitz Sarah, Levina Natalia and Lifshitz-Assaf Hila, ‘Is AI Ground Truth Really True? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts’ Know-What’ (2021) 45(3) MIS Quarterly, 1501–1526. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  211. Lessig Lawrence, ‘The Constitution of Code: Limitations on Choice-Based Critiques of Cyberspace Regulation’ (1997) 5(2) CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 181–192. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  212. Lessig Lawrence, Code: Version 2.0 (Basic Books 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  213. Lewens Tim (ed), Risk: Philosophical Perspectives (Routledge 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  214. Li Aiguo, Walling Jennifer, Ahn Susie and others, ‘Unsupervised Analysis of Transcriptomic Profiles Reveals Six Glioma Subtypes’ (2009) 69(5) Cancer research, 2091–2099. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  215. Liu Hin-Yan, Maas Matthijs, Danaher John and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Disruption: A New Model for Analysis’ (2020) 12(2) Law, Innovation and Technology, 205–258. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  216. López-Rubio Ezequiel, ‘Computational Functionalism for the Deep Learning Era’ (2018) 28(4) Minds & Machines, 667–688. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  217. Luxton David D. (ed), Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care (Elsevier Reference Monographs 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  218. Lyell David and Coiera Enrico, ‘Automation Bias and Verification Complexity: A Systematic Review’ (2017) 24(2) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 423–431. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  219. MacCallum Gerald C., ‘Negative and Positive Freedom’ (1967) 76(3) The Philosophical Review, 312–334. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  220. MacCormick Neil, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press 1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  221. MacCormick Neil and Summers Robert S. (eds), Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study (Routledge 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  222. Maclean Alasdair R., ‘Consent, Sectionalisation and the Concept of a Medical Procedure’ (2002) 28(4) Journal of Medical Ethics, 249–254. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  223. Maclean Alasdair R., ‘The Doctrine of Informed Consent: Does It Exist and Has It Crossed the Atlantic?’ (2004) 24(3) Legal Studies, 386–413. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  224. Maclean Alasdair R., Autonomy, Informed Consent and Medical Law: A Relational Challenge (Cambridge University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  225. Mahase Elisabeth, ‘Birmingham Trust and Babylon Health Discuss Pre-A&E Triage App’ (2019) 365(l2354) BMJ (Clinical Research Edition). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  226. Mandel Gregory N., ‘Legal Evolution in Response to Technological Change’ in Brownsword, Scotford and Yeung, The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (Oxford University Press 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  227. Marchant Gary E., ‘The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and the Law’ in Marchant, Allenby and Herkert, The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem (Springer Netherlands 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  228. Marchant Gary E., Allenby Braden R. and Herkert Joseph R. (eds), The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem (Springer Netherlands 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  229. Mayer-Schonberger Viktor, ‘Demystifying Lessig’ [2008](4) Wisconsin Law Review, 713–746. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  230. McDonald George, California Medical Malpractice: Law & Practice (Revised Edition, Thomson West 2022). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  231. McDougall Rosalind J., ‘Computer Knows Best?: The Need for Value-Flexibility in Medical AI’ [2019](45) Journal of Medical Ethics, 156–160. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  232. McDougall Rosalind J., ‘No We Shouldn't Be Afraid of Medical AI; It Involves Risks and Opportunities’ (2019) 45(8) Journal of Medical Ethics, 559. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  233. McGregor Harvey, Edelman James, Colton Simon and others, McGregor on Damages (Twenty-First Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  234. McHale Jean V., ‘‘Appropriate Consent’ and the Use of Human Material for Research Purposes: The Competent Adult’ (2006) 1(4) Clinical Ethics, 195–199. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  235. McHale Jean V., ‘Consent to Treatment: The Competent Patient’ in Laing and McHale, Principles of Medical Law (Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  236. McLean Sheila A. M. (ed), First Do No Harm (Routledge 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  237. Meagher Dan, ‘Is There a Common Law Right to Freedom of Speech?’ (2019) 43(1) Melbourne University Law Review, 269–302. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  238. Mechelli Andrea and Vieira Sandra (eds), Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  239. Meisel Alan, ‘A Dignitary Tort as a Bridge between the Idea of Informed Consent and the Law of Informed Consent’ (1988) 16(3-4) Law, Medicine and Health Care, 210–218. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  240. Meisel Alan, ‘The Right to Die: A Case Study in American Lawmaking’ (1996) 3(1) European Journal of Health Law, 49–74. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  241. Mele Alfred R., ‘Motivated Irrationality’ in Mele and Rawling, The Oxford Handbook of Rationality (Oxford University Press 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  242. Mele Alfred R. and Rawling Piers (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality (Oxford University Press 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  243. Michaels Ralf, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann and Zimmermann, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Second Edition. Oxford University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  244. Michelucci Umberto, Applied Deep Learning: A Case-Based Approach to Understanding Deep Neural Networks (Apress 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  245. Miguel Beriain Iñigo de, ‘Should We Have a Right to Refuse Diagnostics and Treatment Planning by Artificial Intelligence?’ (2020) 23(2) Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 247–252. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  246. Minsky Marvin, The Society of Mind (First Edition, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks 1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  247. Minssen Timo, Gerke Sara, Aboy Mateo and others, ‘Regulatory Responses to Medical Machine Learning’ (2020) 7(1) Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 1–18. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  248. Molnar Christoph, Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Interpretable (Lulu 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  249. Montanez Savannah R., ‘Pregnant and Scared: How NIFLA v. Becerra Avoids Protecting Women's Reproductive Autonomy’ (2019) 56(3) San Diego Law Review, 829–852. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  250. Montgomery Jonathan, ‘Law and the Demoralisation of Medicine’ (2006) 26(2) Legal Studies, 185–210. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  251. Moore Nancy J., ‘Intent and Consent in the Tort of Battery: Confusion and Controversy’ (2012) 61(6) American University Law Review, 1585–1656. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  252. Morgan Jonathan, ‘Torts and Technology’ in Brownsword, Scotford and Yeung, The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (Oxford University Press 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  253. Morik Katharina, ‘A Note on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics’ in Bauer and others, Applications in Statistical Computing (Springer International Publishing 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  254. Moses Lyria B., ‘Adapting the Law to Technological Change: A Comparison of Common Law and Legislation Courts and Parliament’ (2003) 26(2) UNSW Law Journal, 394–417. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  255. Moses Lyria B., ‘Sui Generis Rules’ in Marchant, Allenby and Herkert, The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem (Springer Netherlands 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  256. Moses Lyria B., ‘The Legal Landscape Following Technological Change: Paths to Adaptation’ (2007) 27(5) Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 408–416. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  257. Moses Lyria B., ‘Why Have a Theory of Law and Technological Change?’ (2007) 8(2) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 589–606. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  258. Mosier Kathleen L., Skitka Linda J., Heers Susan and others, ‘Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-Tech Cockpits’ (1998) 8(1) The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 47–63. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  259. Mourby Miranda, Ó Cathaoir Katharina and Collin Catherine B., ‘Transparency of Machine-Learning in Healthcare: The GDPR & European Health Law’ (2021) 43 Computer Law & Security Review. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  260. Muehlematter Urs J., Daniore Paola and Vokinger Kerstin N., ‘Approval of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning-Based Medical Devices in the USA and Europe (2015–20): A Comparative Analysis’ (2021) 3(3) The Lancet Digital Health, 195–203. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  261. Mueller Andy, ‘The Knowledge Norm of Apt Practical Reasoning’ (2021) 199(1-2) Synthese, 5395–5414. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  262. Mulligan Andrea, ‘A Vindicatory Approach to Tortious Liability for Mistakes in Assisted Human Reproduction’ (2020) 40(1) Legal Studies, 55–76. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  263. Murphy Thérèse (ed), New Technologies and Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  264. Naeem Muddasar, Rizvi Syed T. H. and Coronato Antonio, ‘A Gentle Introduction to Reinforcement Learning and its Application in Different Fields’ (2020) 8 IEEE Access, 209320–209344. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  265. Narla Akhila, Kuprel Brett, Sarin Kavita and others, ‘Automated Classification of Skin Lesions: From Pixels to Practice’ (2018) 138(10) The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 2108–2110. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  266. Ngo Brandon, Nguyen Diep and van Sonnenberg Eric, ‘The Cases for and against Artificial Intelligence in the Medical School Curriculum’ (2022) 4(5) Radiology: Artificial intelligence, 1–8. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  267. Nilsson Nils J., The Quest for Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  268. Nolan Donal, ‘Damage in the English Law of Negligence’ (2013) 4(3) Journal of European Tort Law, 259–281. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  269. Nolan Donal, ‘Negligence and Autonomy’ [2022](2), 356–383. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  270. Nolan Donal, ‘New Forms of Damage in Negligence’ (2007) 70(1) The Modern Law Review, 59–88. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  271. Nolan Donal, ‘Varying the Standard of Care in Negligence’ (2013) 72(3) The Cambridge Law Journal, 651–688. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  272. Nolan Donal and Robertson Andrew (eds), Rights and Private Law (Hart Publishing 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  273. Nolan Paul, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Is Too Much Transparency a Good Thing?’ [2023] The Medico-Legal Journal, Onlinefirst. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  274. O'Neill Jennifer, ‘Lessons From the Vaginal Mesh Scandal: Enhancing the Patient-Centric Approach to Informed Consent for Medical Device Implantation’ (2021) 37(1) International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, e53, 1-5. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  275. Orfali Kristina, ‘A Journey Through Global Bioethics’ (2019) 16(3) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 305–308. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  276. Ormerod David C. and Laird Karl, Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Criminal Law (Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  277. Papathanasiou Jason, Zaraté Pascale and Freire de Sousa Jorge (eds), EURO Working Group on DSS: A Tour of the DSS Developments Over the Last 30 Years (Springer International Publishing 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  278. Parasuraman Raja and Manzey Dietrich H., ‘Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration’ (2010) 52(3) Human Factors, 381–410. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  279. Parfit Derek, On What Matters: Volume One (Oxford University Press 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  280. Parikh Harsh, Hoffman Kentaro, Sun Haoqi and others, ‘Why Interpretable Causal Inference is Important for High-Stakes Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and How To Do It’ (2022) Preprint, 1–31. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  281. Parikh Ravi B. and Helmchen Lorens A., ‘Paying For Artificial Intelligence in Medicine’ [2022](5) NPJ Digital Medicine. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  282. Pattinson Shaun D., Medical Law and Ethics (Sixth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  283. Paulo Norbert, The Confluence of Philosophy and Law in Applied Ethics (Palgrave Macmillan UK 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  284. Pedrycz Witold and Chen Shyi-Ming (eds), Deep Learning: Concepts and Architectures (Springer International Publishing 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  285. Pennachin Cassio and Goertzel Ben, ‘Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence’ in Goertzel and Pennachin, Artificial General Intelligence (Springer 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  286. Perry Stephen, ‘Risk, Harm, Interests and Rights’ in Lewens, Risk: Philosophical Perspectives (Routledge 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  287. Phillips Andelka M., Campos Thana C. de and Herring Jonathan (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law (Oxford University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  288. Ploug Thomas and Holm Søren, ‘Doctors, Patients, and Nudging in the Clinical Context--Four Views on Nudging and Informed Consent’ (2015) 15(10) The American Journal of Bioethics, 28–38. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  289. Ploug Thomas and Holm Søren, ‘The Four Dimensions of Contestable AI Diagnostics - A Patient-Centric Approach to Explainable AI’ (2020) 107 Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  290. Ploug Thomas and Holm Søren, ‘The Right to Refuse Diagnostics and Treatment Planning by Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 23(1) Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 107–114. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  291. Pope Thaddeus M., ‘Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law’ (2017) 45(1) Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 12–40. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  292. Poscher Ralf, ‘The Hand of Midas: When Concepts Turn Legal, or Deflating the Hart-Dworkin Debate’ in Hage and Pfordten, Concepts in Law (Springer Netherlands 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  293. Posner Richard A., Law and Legal Theory in England and America (Clarendon Press 2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  294. Post David G., ‘Against "Against Cyberanarchy"’ (2002) 17(4) Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1365–1387. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  295. Povyakalo Andrey A., Alberdi Eugenio, Strigini Lorenzo and others, ‘How to Discriminate Between Computer-Aided and Computer-Hindered Decisions: A Case Study in Mammography’ (2013) 33(1) Medical Decision Making, 98–107. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  296. Prainsack Barbara and Buyx Alena, ‘Thinking Ethical and Regulatory Frameworks in Medicine From the Perspective of Solidarity on Both Sides of the Atlantic’ (2016) 37(6) Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 489–501. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  297. Priaulx Nicolette, ‘Joy to the World! A (Healthy) Child Is Born! Reconceptualizing Harm in Wrongful Conception’ (2004) 13(1) Social & Legal Studies, 5–26. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  298. Priaulx Nicolette, The Harm Paradox: Tort Law and the Unwanted Child in an Era of Choice (Routledge 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  299. Price David, ‘Remodelling the Regulation of Postmodern Innovation in Medicine’ (2005) 1(2) International Journal of Law in Context, 121–141. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  300. Price II W. N., ‘Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Applications and Legal Implications.’ (2017) 14(1) The SciTech Lawyer, 10–13. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  301. Price II W. N., ‘Distributed Governance of Medical AI’ (2022) 25(1) SMU Science & Technology Law Review, 3–22. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  302. Price II W. N., ‘Medical AI and Contextual Bias’ (2019) 33(1) Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 65–116. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  303. Price II W. N., Sachs Rachel E. and Eisenberg Rebecca S., ‘New Innovation Models in Medical AI’ (2022) (2022) 99(4) Washington University Law Review, 1121– 1173. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  304. Price Monroe E., ‘The Newness of New Technology’ (2001) 22(5-6) Cardozo Law Review, 1885–1913. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  305. Pugh Jonathan, Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics (Oxford University Press 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  306. Purshouse Craig, ‘Autonomy, Affinity, and the Assessment of Damages: ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20 and Shaw v Kovak [2017] EWCA Civ 1028’ (2018) 26(4) Medical Law Review, 675–692. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  307. Purshouse Craig, ‘How Should Autonomy Be Defined in Medical Negligence Cases?’ (2015) 10(4) Clinical Ethics, 107–114. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  308. Purshouse Craig, ‘Judicial Reasoning and the Concept of Damage: Rethinking Medical Negligence Cases’ (2015) 15(2-3) Medical Law International, 155–181. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  309. Purshouse Craig, ‘Liability for Lost Autonomy in Negligence: Undermining the Coherence of Tort Law?’ (2015) 22(3) Torts Law Journal, 226–249. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  310. Purshouse Craig, ‘Should Lost Autonomy be Recognised as Actionable Damage in Medical Negligence Cases?’ (Thesis for the degree of PhD in Bioethics and Medical Jurisprudence, University of Manchester 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  311. Purshouse Craig, ‘The Impatient Patient and the Unreceptive Receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50’ (2019) 27(2) Medical Law Review, 318–329. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  312. Raz Joseph, ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’ (1972) 81(5) Yale Law Journal, 823–854. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  313. Reidenberg Joel R., ‘Governing Networks and Rule-Making in Cyberspace’ (1996) 45(3) Emory Law Journal, 911–930. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  314. Reidenberg Joel R., ‘Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology’ (1997) 76(3) Texas Law Review, 553–594. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  315. Reimann Mathias and Zimmermann Reinhard (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Second Edition, Oxford University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  316. Rhodes Rosamond, Francis Leslie P. and Silvers Anita (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Medical Ethics (John Wiley & Sons 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  317. Richards Bernadette J., ‘Autonomy and the Law: Widely Used Poorly Defined’ in Kirchhoffer and Richards, Beyond Autonomy (Cambridge University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  318. Rid Annette. and Wendler David, ‘Risk-Benefit Assessment in Medical Research – Critical Review and Open Questions’ (2010) 9(3-4) Law, Probability and Risk, 151–177. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  319. Robertson Andrew and Tang Hang W. (eds), The Goals of Private Law (Hart Publishing 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  320. Robertson Andrew, ‘Constraints on Policy-Based Reasoning in Private Law’ in Robertson and Tang, The Goals of Private Law (Hart Publishing 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  321. Rubel Alan, Castro Clinton and Pham Adam, Algorithms and Autonomy (Cambridge University Press 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  322. Rudin Cynthia, ‘Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead’ (2019) 1(5) Nature Machine Intelligence, 206–215. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  323. Rudin Cynthia and Ustun Berk, ‘Optimized Scoring Systems: Toward Trust in Machine Learning for Healthcare and Criminal Justice’ (2018) 48(5) Interfaces, 449–466. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  324. Rudin Cynthia, Chen Chaofan, Chen Zhi and others, ‘Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challenges’ (2022) 16 Statistics Surveys, 1–85. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  325. Rumelhart David E., Hinton Geoffrey E. and McClelland James L., ‘A General Framework for Parallel Distributed Processing’ in Rumelhart, James L. McClelland and PDP Research Group, Parallel Distributed Processing, Volume 1: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  326. Rumelhart David E., James L. McClelland and PDP Research Group (eds), Parallel Distributed Processing, Volume 1: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  327. Russell Stuart J., ‘Rationality and Intelligence’ (1997) 94(1-2) Artificial Intelligence, 57–77. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  328. Rustad Michael L. and Koenig Thomas H., ‘Cybertorts and Legal Lag: An Empirical Analysis’ (2003) 13(1) Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 77–140. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  329. Ryan Mark, ‘In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability’ (2020) 26(5) Science and Engineering Ethics, 2749–2767. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  330. Saghai Yashar, ‘Salvaging the Concept of Nudge’ (2013) 39(8) Journal of Medical Ethics, 487–493. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  331. Saporta Adriel, Gui Xiaotong, Agrawal Ashwin and others, ‘Benchmarking Saliency Methods for Chest X-Ray Interpretation’ [2022](4) Nature Machine Intelligence, 867–878. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  332. Sartor Giovanni, ‘Human Rights in the Information Society: Utopias, Dystopias and Human Values’ in Azevedo Cunha and others, New Technologies and Human Rights: Challenges to Regulation (Ashgate Publishing 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  333. Savulescu Julian, ‘Autonomy, the Good Life, and Controversial Choices’ in Rhodes, Francis and Silvers, The Blackwell Guide to Medical Ethics (John Wiley & Sons 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  334. Savulescu Julian, ‘Rational Desires and the Limitation of Life-Sustaining Treatment’ (1994) 8(3) Bioethics, 191–222. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  335. Scarpazza Cristina, Baecker Lea, Vieira Sandra and others, ‘Applications of Machine Learning to Brain Disorders’ in Mechelli and Vieira, Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  336. Schmidhuber Jürgen, ‘Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overview’ (2015) 61 Neural Networks, 85–117. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  337. Schoeman Ferdinand D. (ed), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy (Cambridge University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  338. Schönberger Daniel, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Critical Analysis of the Legal and Ethical Implications’ (2019) 27(2) International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 171–203. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  339. Schramme Thomas and Edwards Steven (eds), Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine (Springer Netherlands 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  340. Schultz Marjorie M., ‘From Informed Consent to Patient Choice: A New Protected Interest’ (1985) 95(2) The Yale Law Journal, 219–299. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  341. Seabourne Gwen, ‘The Role of the Tort of Battery in Medical Law’ (1995) 24(3) Anglo-American Law Review, 265–298. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  342. Sejnowski Terrence J., The Deep Learning Revolution (MIT Press 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  343. Selbst Andrew D. and Powles Julia, ‘Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation’ (2017) 7(4) International Data Privacy Law, 233–242. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  344. Sharma Nisha, Ng Annie Y., James Jonathan J. and others, ‘Large-Scale Evaluation of an AI System as an Independent Reader for Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening’ (2021) Pre-Print, 1–13. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  345. Sharpe Virginia A. and Faden Alan I., Medical Harm: Historical, Conceptual, and Ethical Dimensions of Iatrogenic Illness (Cambridge University Press 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  346. Shell Richard G., ‘Contracts in the Modern Supreme Court’ (1993) 81(2) California Law Review, 431–530. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  347. Sherrard Michael and Gatt Ian, ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antibody Testing: Guidance from an Opinion Provided for the British Medical Association’ (1987) 295(6603) British Medical Journal, 911–912. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  348. Shortreed Susan M., Laber Eric, Lizotte Daniel J. and others, ‘Informing Sequential Clinical Decision-Making Through Reinforcement Learning: An Empirical Study’ (2011) 84(1-2) Machine Learning, 109–136. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  349. Siegel Reva B. and Greenhouse Linda, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling (Kaplan 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  350. Simons Kenneth W., ‘A Restatement (Third) of Intentional Torts’ (2006) 48 Arizona Law Review, 1061–1102. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  351. Smith Stephen A., ‘Duties, Liabilities, and Damages’ (2012) 125(7) Harvard Law Review, 1727–1756. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  352. Sommer Joseph H., ‘Against Cyberlaw’ (2000) 15(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1145–1232. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  353. Somsen Han, ‘Regulating Human Genetics in a Neo-Eugenic Era’ in Murphy, New Technologies and Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  354. Spindelman Marc, ‘Are the Similarities between a Woman's Right to Choose an Abortion and the Alleged Right to Assisted Suicide Really Compelling’ (1996) 29(3) University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 775–856. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  355. Stevens Laura M., Mortazavi Bobak J., Deo Rahul C. and others, ‘Recommendations for Reporting Machine Learning Analyses in Clinical Research’ (2020) 13(10) Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 782-793. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  356. Stoljar Natalie, ‘Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy’ (2011) 36(4) The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 375–384. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  357. Strauß Stefan, ‘Deep Automation Bias: How to Tackle a Wicked Problem of AI?’ (2021) 5(2) Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 1–14. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  358. Sujan Mark, Furniss Dominic, Grundy Kath and others, ‘Human Factors Challenges for the Safe Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patient Care’ (2019) 26(1) BMJ Health & Care Informatics, 1–5. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  359. Sun Ron, ‘Connectionism and Neural Networks’ in Frankish and Ramsey, The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  360. Sunstein Cass R., After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Harvard University Press 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  361. Sunstein Cass R., Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (Oxford University Press 1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  362. Sutherland Lauren, ‘Montgomery: Myths, Misconceptions and Misunderstanding’ [2019](3) Journal of Personal Injury Law, 157–167. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  363. Sutherland Lauren, ‘The Law Finally Reflects Good Professional Practice: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board’ [2015](123) Reparation Bulletin, 4–8. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  364. Sutton Richard S. and Barto Andrew, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Second Edition, MIT Press 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  365. Syrett Keith, ‘Institutional Liability’ in Laing and McHale, Principles of Medical Law (Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  366. Szolovits Peter, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (Westview Press 1982). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  367. Terrion Halle F., ‘Informed Choice: Physicians' Duty to Disclose Nonreadily Available Alternatives’ (1993) 43(2) Case Western Reserve Law Review, 491–524. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  368. Thaler Richard H. and Sunstein Cass R., Nudge (The Final Edition, Allen Lane 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  369. Theodoridis Sergios, Machine Learning: A Bayesian and Optimization Perspective (Second Edition, Elsevier 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  370. Thomasian Nicole M., Eickhoff Carsten and Adashi Eli Y., ‘Advancing Health Equity with Artificial Intelligence’ (2021) 42(4) Journal of Public Health Policy, 602–611. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  371. Throckmorton Archibald H., ‘Damages for Fright’ (1923) 57(6) American Law Review, 828–853. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  372. Todd Stephen, ‘Common Law Protection for Injury to a Person's Reproductive Autonomy’ (2019) 135 Law Quarterly Review, 635–659. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  373. Topol Eric J., Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again (Basic Books 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  374. Topol Eric J., ‘High-Performance Medicine: The Convergence of Human and Artificial Intelligence’ (2019) 25(1) Nature Medicine, 44–56. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  375. Tranter Kieran, ‘The Law and Technology Enterprise: Uncovering the Template to Legal Scholarship on Technology’ (2011) 3(1) Law, Innovation and Technology, 31–83. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  376. Tribe Laurence H., ‘Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality’ (1973) 46(3) Southern California Law Review, 617–660. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  377. Tsoukias Alexis, ‘Social Responsibility of Algorithms: An Overview’ in Papathanasiou, Zaraté and Freire de Sousa, EURO Working Group on DSS: A Tour of the DSS Developments Over the Last 30 Years (Springer International Publishing 2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  378. Turner Jacob, Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Springer International Publishing 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  379. Turton Gemma, ‘Informed Consent to Medical Treatment Post-Montgomery: Causation and Coincidence’ (2019) 27(1) Medical Law Review, 108–134. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  380. Twerski Aarib D. and Cohen Neil B., ‘Informed Decision Making and the Law of Torts: The Myth of Justiciable Causation’ [1988](3) University of Illinois Law Review, 607–666. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  381. Vansweevelt Thierry and Glover-Thomas Nicola (eds), Informed Consent and Health: A Global Analysis (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  382. Varuhas J. N., ‘The Concept of 'Vindication' in the Law of Torts: Rights, Interests and Damages’ (2014) 34(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 253–293. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  383. Veatch Robert M., ‘Doctor Does Not Know Best: Why in the New Century Physicians Must Stop Trying to Benefit Patients’ (2000) 25(6) The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 701–721. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  384. Vieira Sandra, Pinaya Walter H. L. and Mechelli Andrea, ‘Introduction to Machine Learning’ in Mechelli and Vieira, Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  385. Vieira Sandra, Pinaya Walter H. L. and Mechelli Andrea, ‘Main Concepts in Machine Learning’ in Mechelli and Vieira, Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  386. Vieira Sandra, Pinaya Walter H. L., Garcia-Dias Rafael and others, ‘Deep Neural Networks’ in Mechelli and Vieira, Machine Learning: Methods and Applications to Brain Disorders (Academic Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  387. Voter Andrew F., Meram Ece, Garrett John W. and others, ‘Diagnostic Accuracy and Failure Mode Analysis of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage’ (2021) 18(8) Journal of the American College of Radiology, 1143–1152. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  388. Wachter Sandra, Mittelstadt Brent and Floridi Luciano, ‘Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation’ (2017) 7(2) International Data Privacy Law, 76–99. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  389. Wachter Sandra, Mittelstadt Brent, Russell and others, ‘Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR’ (2017) 31(1) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 841–887. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  390. Wagemans Jean H. M., ‘The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion’ (2011) 25(3) Argumentation, 329–339. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  391. Wall Jesse, ‘How the Philosophy Gets In’ in Phillips, Campos and Herring, Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law (Oxford University Press 2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  392. Walton Douglas N., Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority (Pennsylvania State University Press 1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  393. Wang Pei, ‘On Defining Artificial Intelligence’ (2019) 10(2) Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 1–37. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  394. Wang Pei, ‘What Do You Mean by “AI”?’ in Wang, Goertzel and Franklin, Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference (IOS Press 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  395. Wang Pei, Goertzel Ben and Franklin Stan (eds), Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference (IOS Press 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  396. Weisbard Alan J., ‘Informed Consent: The Law's Uneasy Compromise with Ethical Theory’ (1986) 65(4) Nebraska Law Review, 749–767. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  397. Westbrook Johanna I., Coiera Enrico W. and Gosling A. S., ‘Do Online Information Retrieval Systems Help Experienced Clinicians Answer Clinical Questions?’ (2005) 12(3) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 315–321. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  398. Wicks Elizabeth, Human Rights and Healthcare (Hart Publishing 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  399. Winner Langdon, ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’ (1993) 18(3) Science, Technology, & Human Values, 362–378. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  400. Winston Kenneth I. (ed), The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller (Revised Edition, Hart Publishing 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  401. Witkin Bernard E., Summary of California Law (Eleventh Edition, Thomas Reuters 2022). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  402. Witzleb Normann and Caroll Robyn, ‘The Role of Vindication in Torts Damages’ (2009) 17(1) Tort Law Review, 16–44. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  403. Wolf Susan M., ‘Shifting Paradigms in Bioethics and Health Law: The Rise of a New Pragmatism’ (1994) 20(4) American Journal of Law & Medicine, 395–415. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  404. Wolf Susan, Freedom Within Reason (Oxford University Press 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  405. Wood Elena A., Ange Brittany L. and Miller D. D., ‘Are We Ready to Integrate Artificial Intelligence Literacy into Medical School Curriculum: Students and Faculty Survey’ (2021) 8 Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 1-5. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  406. Wulfovich Sharon and Meyers Arlen (eds), Digital Health Entrepreneurship (Springer Cham 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  407. Yang Xi, Bian Jiang, Hogan William R. and others, ‘Clinical Concept Extraction Using Transformers’ (2020) 27(12) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1935–1942. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  408. Yu Kun-Hsing, Beam Andrew L. and Kohane Isaac S., ‘Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare’ (2018) 2(10) Nature Biomedical Engineering, 719–731. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  409. Zacher Hans F., ‘Das soziale Staatsziel’ in Zacher, Abhandlungen zum Sozialrecht (Müller Juristischer Verlag 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  410. Zacher Hans F., Maydell Bernd von and Eichenhofer Eberhard (eds), Abhandlungen zum Sozialrecht (Müller Juristischer Verlag 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  411. Zednik Carlos, ‘Solving the Black Box Problem: A Normative Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence’ (2021) 34(2) Philosophy & Technology, 265–288. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  412. Zweigert Konrad and Kötz Hein, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung: Auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts (Third Edition, Mohr Siebeck 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  413. II. Material Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  414. ‘FAccT '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency’ (2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  415. ‘Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining’ (2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  416. ‘The 2021 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications: October 31-November 2, 2021, Dubai, UAE’ (2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  417. AI Healthcare Coalition, ‘AI Healthcare Coalition Appreciates CMS’ Efforts to Support Access to Innovative AI Services’ (2021) <https://ai-coalition.org/news/ai-healthcare-coalition-appreciates-cms-efforts-to-support-access-to-innovative-ai-services> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  418. Annette Markham and others (eds), ‘AIES '20: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society’ (2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  419. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Guidelines on Automated Individual Decision-Making and Profiling for the Purposes of Regulation 2016/679’ (2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  420. Bhatt Umang, Xiang Alice, Sharma Shubham and others, ‘Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment’ (Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, Spain, 27.01.2020-30.01.2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  421. Caruana Rich, Lou Yin, Gehrke Johannes and others, ‘Intelligible Models for HealthCare: Predicting Pneumonia Risk and Hospital 30-day Readmission’ (Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney NSW Australia, 10.8.2015-13.8.2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  422. Chang Anthony, ‘Common Misconceptions and Future Directions for AI in Medicine: A Physician-Data Scientist Perspective’ in Riaño, Wilk and Teije, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 17th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2019, Poznan, Poland, June 26–29, 2019, Proceedings (2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  423. Chaudhury Hassan, ‘AI in Health in the United Kingdom: An Overview for SME's and Research Institutes on the Trends, Challenges and Opportunities for AI Applications in the British Healthcare Sector’ (Market Report, 2021) <https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2021/06/AI-in-Health-UK-market-report_0.pdf> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  424. Coghlan Andy, ‘Could HIV tests land doctors in court?’ (19.1.1994) <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119100-600-could-hiv-tests-land-doctors-in-court/> accessed 9.3.2021. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  425. Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘Mensch und Maschine – Herausforderungen durch Künstliche Intelligenz’ (Stellungnahme, 2023). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  426. Di Nucci Ezio, Jensen Rasmus T. and Tupasela Aaro, ‘Ethics of Medical AI: The Case of Watson for Oncology’ (English version of the paper ― Kunstig Intelligens og Medicinsk Etik: Tilfaeldet Watson for Oncology, to be printed in the volume 8 Cases i Medicinsk Etik 5.12.2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3432317> accessed 5.4.2020. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  427. Digital Diagnostics, ‘IDx-DR’ <https://www.digitaldiagnostics.com/products/eye-disease/idx-dr/> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  428. Edwards Lifesciences, ‘Edwards' Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index Launches In The U.S.’ (18.3.2022) <https://www.edwards.com/ns20180319> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  429. Fibricheck, ‘What is FibriCheck and how does it work?’ <https://www.fibricheck.com/what-is-fibricheck-and-how-does-it-work/> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  430. Franke Ulrike, ‘Artificial Intelligence Diplomacy: Artificial Intelligence Governance as a New European Union External Policy Tool’ (Study Requested by the AIDA Committee, 2021) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2021)662926> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  431. General Medical Council, ‘Consent: Patients and Doctors Making Decisions Together’ (London 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  432. General Medical Council, ‘Decision Making and Consent’ (London 2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  433. GOV.UK, ‘Regulating medical devices in the UK: What you need to do to place a medical device on the Great Britain, Northern Ireland and European Union (EU) markets’ (Guidance 1.1.2022) <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulating-medical-devices-in-the-uk> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  434. Grgic-Hlaca Nina, Redmiles Elissa M., Gummadi Krishna P. and others, ‘Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making’ (WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France, 23.04.2018-27.4.2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  435. Hamon Ronan, Junklewitz Henrik, Malgieri Gianclaudio and others, ‘Impossible Explanations?: Beyond Explainable AI in the GDPR From a COVID-19 Use Case Scenario’ (FAccT '21: 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 03.03.2021 - 10.03.2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  436. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice’ (2021 Ninth Edition) <https://portal.hfea.gov.uk/knowledge-base/read-the-code-of-practice/> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  437. IBM, ‘5725-W51 IBM Watson for Oncology: Sales Manual’ (2020) <https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?appname=skmwww&htmlfid=897%2FENUS5725-W51&infotype=DD&subtype=SM&mhsrc=ibmsearch_a&mhq=IBM%20WATSON%20ONcology> accessed 18.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  438. IDx LLC, ‘Fully Automated Diagnostic Device Receives CE Certification; IDx LLC Planning For Rollout Across Europe’ (6.5.2013) <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fully-automated-diagnostic-device-receives-ce-certification-idx-llc-planning-for-rollout-across-europe-206263101.html> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  439. Information Commissioner's Office, ‘What are ‘controllers’ and ‘processors’?’ (17.10.2022) <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/controllers-and-processors/what-are-controllers-and-processors/#1> accessed 18.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  440. International World Wide Web Conference Committee (ed), ‘WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference’ (2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  441. Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, ‘Digital Health Startup That Assists Emergency Department Decision Making Acquired’ (2022) accessed 17.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  442. Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill, ‘Draft Mental Incapacity Bill: Session 2002–03 Volume I’ (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  443. Lakkaraju Himabindu and Bastani Osbert, ‘"How Do I Fool You?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations’ (AIES '20: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New York, USA, 07.02.2020-09.02.2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  444. Laugel Thibault, Lesot Marie-Jeanne, Marsala Christophe and others, ‘The Dangers of Post-Hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual Explanations’ (Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Macao, China, 8.10.2019-8.16.2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  445. Law Commission, ‘Liability for Psychiatric Illness’ (Law Commission Consultation Paper No 137, 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  446. Mann Brian, ‘Health Care Software Firm Fined $145M In Opioid Scheme With Drug Companies’ (1.2.2020) <https://www.npr.org/2020/02/01/801832788/healthcare-software-firm-fined-145m-in-opioid-scheme-with-drug-companies?t=1615393792393> accessed 10.3.2021. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  447. Matheny Michael, Israni Sonoo T., Ahmed Mahnoor and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril’ (NAM Special Publication 2019) <https://nam.edu/artificial-intelligence-special-publication/> accessed 5.4.2020. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  448. Marchiori Chiara, Dykeman Douglas, Girardi Ivan and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence Decision Support for Medical Triage’ [2020] AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 793–802. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  449. MaxQ AI, Ltd, ‘MaxQ-AI Receives CE Mark Approval for Accipio™Ix Intracranial Hemorrhage Artificial Intelligence Software Platform’ (22.5.2018) <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/maxq-ai-receives-ce-mark-approval-for-accipioix-intracranial-hemorrhage-artificial-intelligence-software-platform-300652488.html> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  450. MaxQ Artificial Intelligence, ‘ACCIPIO®—Solution Architecture and Design: A White Paper’ <https://www.maxq.ai/resources> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  451. Mireille Hildebrandt and others (eds), ‘FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency: January 27-30, 2020, Barcelona, Spain’ (2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  452. NHS Transformation Directorate, ‘The NHS AI Lab’ <https://transform.england.nhs.uk/ai-lab/> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  453. NHSX, ‘NCCID case study: Setting standards for testing Artificial Intelligence’ (21.2.2022) <https://www.nhsx.nhs.uk/ai-lab/explore-all-resources/develop-ai/nccid-case-study-setting-standards-for-testing-artificial-intelligence/> accessed 6.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  454. Nix Mike, Onisiforou George and Painter Annabelle, ‘Understanding Healthcare Workers’ Confidence in AI’ (Report 1 of 2 2022) <https://digital-transformation.hee.nhs.uk/building-a-digital-workforce/dart-ed/horizon-scanning/understanding-healthcare-workers-confidence-in-ai> accessed 11.11.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  455. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘Bioethics Briefing Note: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Healthcare and Research’ (2018) <http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-healthcare-and-research.pdf> accessed 17.6.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  456. Okay Feyza Y., Yildirim Mustafa and Ozdemir Suat, ‘Interpretable Machine Learning: A Case Study of Healthcare’ (2021 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10.31.2021-11.2.2021). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  457. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, ‘Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A report on the Ethical, Medical and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions’ (Washington, DC 1983). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  458. Riaño David, Wilk Szymon and Teije Annette ten (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 17th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2019, Poznan, Poland, June 26–29, 2019, Proceedings (2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  459. Rohaidi Nurfilzah, ‘IBM’s Watson Detected Rare Leukemia In Just 10 Minutes’ (16.8.2016) <https://www.asianscientist.com/2016/08/topnews/ibm-watson-rare-leukemia-university-tokyo-artificial-intelligence/> accessed 4.9.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  460. Ross Casey and Swetlitz Ike, ‘IBM pitched its Watson supercomputer as a revolution in cancer care. It’s nowhere close’ (5.9.2017) <https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/05/watson-ibm-cancer/> accessed 28.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  461. Sarit Kraus (ed), ‘Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence’ (2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  462. Schemmer Max, Kühl Niklas, Benz Carina and others, ‘On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Bias: Research in Progress’ (19.4.2022) <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.08859> accessed 6.6.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  463. Selanikio Joel, ‘A Closer Look at FDA's AI Medical Device Approvals’ (12.10.2022) <https://www.futurehealth.live/blog/2022/10/10/closer-look-at-fda-ai-approvals> accessed 19.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  464. Siemens Healthineers, ‘AI-Pathway Companion Prostate Cancer from Siemens Healthineers approved for use in Europe as medical device’ (3.3.2020) <https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/fr-be/press-room/press-releases/pr-aipathwaycomp-ce.html> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  465. Smart Andrew, James Larry, Hutchinson Ben and others, ‘Why Reliabilism Is Not Enough: Epistemic and Moral Justification in Machine Learning’ (AIES '20: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New York, USA, 07.02.2020-09.02.2020). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  466. Stember Joseph and Shalu Hrithwik, ‘Deep Reinforcement Learning With Automated Label Extraction From Clinical Reports Accurately Classifies 3D MRI Brain Volumes’ (17.6.2021) <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.09812> accessed 6.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  467. Tayo Benjamin O., ‘Simplicity vs Complexity in Machine Learning — Finding the Right Balance’ (11.11.2019) <https://towardsdatascience.com/simplicity-vs-complexity-in-machine-learning-finding-the-right-balance-c9000d1726fb> accessed 6.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  468. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘Accipiolx 510(k) Summary’ (K182177 26.20.2018) <https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K182177> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  469. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Enabled Medical Devices’ (5.10.2022) <https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-aiml-enabled-medical-devices> accessed 19.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  470. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Software as a Medical Device’ (2021) <https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-software-medical-device> accessed 6.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  471. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘De Novo Classification Request for Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index Feature Software’ (De Novo Summary (DEN160044) 16.3.2018) <https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm?id=DEN160044> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  472. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘De Novo Classification Request for IDx-DR’ (De Novo Summary (DEN180001) 11.4.2018) <https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm?ID=DEN180001> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  473. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, ‘FibriCheck 510(k) Summary’ (K173872 28.9.2018) <https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K173872> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  474. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, ‘ULHT trialling artificial intelligence software to support breast cancer screening’ (16.8.2019) <https://www.ulh.nhs.uk/news/ulht-trialling-artificial-intelligence-software-to-support-breast-cancer-screening/> accessed 7.3.2022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  475. World Economic Forum, ‘The ‘AI divide’ between the Global North and Global South’ (16.1.2023) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/davos23-ai-divide-global-north-global-south/> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919
  476. Zhang Daniel, Maslej Nestor and Brynjolfsson Erik and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2022’ (2022) <https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/> accessed 26.3.2023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748948919

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Studien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Sozialrecht und Sozialpolitik"
Cover des Buchs: Life in Dignity
Sammelband Vollzugriff
Ulrich Becker, Irene Domenici
Life in Dignity
Cover des Buchs: Social Law 4.0: Update
Sammelband Vollzugriff
Ulrich Becker, Olga Chesalina
Social Law 4.0: Update
Cover des Buchs: Social Protection in Bulgaria
Monographie Vollzugriff
Teodora Petrova
Social Protection in Bulgaria
Cover des Buchs: Between Ethical Oversight and State Neutrality
Monographie Vollzugriff
Irene Domenici
Between Ethical Oversight and State Neutrality
Cover des Buchs: Zwischen Akzeptanz und Resignation
Monographie Vollzugriff
Nina Schubert
Zwischen Akzeptanz und Resignation

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex