You keep using that word "request", I think that it does not mean what you think it means.
When Australian artificial intelligence expert Dr Kobi Leins declined a medical specialist's request to use AI transcription software during her child's upcoming appointment, the practice told her the practitioner required the technology be used and Leins was "welcome to seek an alternative" provider.
The AI system used by the practice Leins had booked was an Australian platform which transcribed sessions to maintain the specialist's notes about patients and their health, the practice told her.
It was a system whose privacy and security capabilities Leins had previously reviewed as part of her work in AI governance -- and one she said she would not want her child's data "anywhere near". [...]
"The question is, who has the onus to prove that they're good enough, or that they're fit for purpose and legally compliant?" she said.
Medical practices were likely being approached by AI companies and convinced to purchase their "magical solution", Leins suggested, despite often not being qualified or able to review the tools' privacy and security standards for themselves. [...]
"While AI scribes claim they are not medical devices, some already function in ways that meet the definition, such as proposing diagnoses or treatments, which could require pre-market approval under the Therapeutic Goods Act," he said.
A TGA review published in July found some AI scribes which proposed diagnoses or treatment options for patients were "potentially being supplied in breach of the Act" and may require pre-market approval.
"Regulation should set baseline requirements for encryption, retention, cross-border transfers, and transparency about what is recorded and how it is used," Akhlaghpour said.
Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.