By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
GMJ NewsGMJ NewsGMJ News
  • Latest News
    • GMJ Briefs
  • Podcast & Media
    • Podcast Episodes
    • GMJ Audio
    • GMJ Videos
  • Research Digest
    • New Studies
    • Georgian Research
    • Data & Numbers
  • Policy & Systems
    • Health Policy
    • Quality & Safety
    • Migration & Health
    • Global Health
  • Practice
    • Clinical Updates
    • Case Discussions
    • Pharmacy & Prescribing
    • Ingredients A-Z
  • Perspectives
    • Editorial
    • Explainers
    • Voices
    • Letters
  • Health Topics
  • GMJ Articles
    • Vol. 1 Issue 2 (2026)
    • Vol. 1 Issue 1 (2026)
    • Pre-Launch Articles (2025)
  • Read the Journal →
  • About GMJ News
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
GMJ NewsGMJ News
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest News
    • GMJ Briefs
  • Podcast & Media
    • Podcast Episodes
    • GMJ Audio
    • GMJ Videos
  • Research Digest
    • New Studies
    • Georgian Research
    • Data & Numbers
  • Policy & Systems
    • Health Policy
    • Quality & Safety
    • Migration & Health
    • Global Health
  • Practice
    • Clinical Updates
    • Case Discussions
    • Pharmacy & Prescribing
    • Ingredients A-Z
  • Perspectives
    • Editorial
    • Explainers
    • Voices
    • Letters
  • Health Topics
  • GMJ Articles
    • Vol. 1 Issue 2 (2026)
    • Vol. 1 Issue 1 (2026)
    • Pre-Launch Articles (2025)
  • Read the Journal →
  • About GMJ News
Follow US
GMJ News > GMJ Briefs > Healthcare Providers Bear 100% Legal Responsibility While AI Companies Face Minimal Accountability

Healthcare Providers Bear 100% Legal Responsibility While AI Companies Face Minimal Accountability

GMJ
Last updated: 20/07/2026 14:06
By
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze
Share
1 Min Read
Medical professional using AI technology with legal scales representing liability concerns
Medical Protection Society warns doctors face full legal liability for AI tool errors while technology companies remain shielded from accountability. Current legislation creates impossible position for physicians using AI in healthcare. — Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels (Pexels License)
SHARE
1 min read|139 words

According to a new Medical Protection Society analysis, the current distribution of legal liability in healthcare AI use presents a starkly unbalanced picture. Healthcare providers and medical professionals bear 100% of legal responsibility for AI-related medical decisions and errors, while AI technology companies face virtually no accountability—approximately 5% of responsibility—and regulatory bodies carry roughly 3%.

This disproportionate allocation reflects a fundamental gap in how existing legislation addresses artificial intelligence in clinical settings. The report emphasizes that current legal frameworks do not classify AI systems as regulated medical products, which would ordinarily subject manufacturers to strict liability standards. Consequently, physicians absorb all legal exposure regardless of whether they implement, modify, or reject AI recommendations.

The Medical Protection Society warns that this unsustainable burden threatens medical professionals’ willingness to adopt potentially beneficial AI technologies and raises serious concerns about patient safety oversight.

Was this article helpful?

GMJ Brief · Key Finding

📰 Read the full article: Doctors Face Legal Risk from AI Tools While Companies Escape Liability, Medical Defence Report Warns →

Share This Article
Facebook LinkedIn Bluesky Copy Link Print
GMJ
ByProf. Giorgi Pkhakadze
Follow:
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, MD, MPH, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of the Georgian Medical Journal and Chair of the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG). He is Professor and Head of the Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences at David Tvildiani Medical University, and Secretary/Treasurer of the UEMS Section of Public Health. ORCID: 0000-0001-7609-4515.

Submit Your Paper →

Georgia's peer-reviewed open-access medical journal. No APC until January 2027.
Submit Manuscript →
How Alzheimer’s Spreads Through the Brain: Scientists Identify a Protein Culprit

Researchers have identified a common brain protein that transports toxic Tau proteins…

Buruli ulcer in Africa: balancing innovation with pragmatic care delivery

A new Nature Reviews analysis examines how sub-Saharan Africa can balance cutting-edge…

Informal healthcare providers drive untracked antibiotic use across low- and middle-income countries

A scoping review in BMJ Global Health reveals that informal healthcare providers…

Submit Your Paper to GMJ

No APC until January 2027.
Submit Manuscript →

You Might Also Like

FDA Class I recall notice for VOCSN V+Pro ventilators showing medical device safety alert

What Healthcare Facilities Need to Know About the VOCSN V+Pro Ventilator Recall

By
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze
24/06/2026
UK medicines regulatory authority building with EU and UK flags representing post-Brexit pharmaceutical trade

Three Critical Insights into UK Pharmaceutical Import Licensing and Patient Medicine Access

By
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze
08/07/2026
European Medicines Agency building representing drug safety regulation

April 6, 2026: Italian Regulator Endorses Landmark EU-Wide Levamisole Withdrawal

By
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze
15/07/2026
Diagram showing two-stage regenerative treatment redirecting wound healing pathway from scarring to tissue regrowth

Takeaway: Mammals May Possess Hidden Regenerative Capacity: Scientists Redirect Healing Toward Tissue Regrowth Instead of Scarring

By
Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze
10/08/2026
Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram
Company
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact US
  • GMJ Journal
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Editorial Team
  • Register at GMJ
  • Terms of Use

Subscribe to GMJ News — Click here

Join Community
© 2026 Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ). Published by the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG). All rights reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?

Not a member? Sign Up