Doctors and the NHS could be held legally responsible for medical negligence caused by mistakes made by artificial intelligence tools, even when the AI, not the clinician, made the error. This liability gap is prompting urgent calls for legal reform to prevent physicians from becoming what experts call the "liability sink" for AI-related patient harm.

What Happens When AI Gets a Diagnosis Wrong?

The Medical Protection Society, which represents doctors accused of wrongdoing, released a report warning that under current UK law, clinicians and health systems can be held fully liable for patient harm caused by AI tools they use, even if the technology itself made the critical error. The NHS is increasingly deploying AI for high-stakes tasks, including analyzing scans and X-rays, generating summaries of patient conversations, and drafting letters to patients.

The consequences of AI errors can be severe. Consider two scenarios outlined by the Medical Protection Society: an AI system could miss a tumor in a patient's lung during X-ray analysis, leading to delayed cancer treatment and death. Alternatively, an AI tool might incorrectly recommend increasing a patient's dose of warfarin, a blood thinner used to treat heart conditions, potentially causing life-threatening bleeding that requires surgery and intensive care.

"The law has always struggled to keep up with technological change. But with AI, the pace of change is so rapid that this gap feels less like a step and more like a widening gulf," said Dr. Sarah Townley, deputy medical director at the Medical Protection Society.

Dr. Sarah Townley, Deputy Medical Director, Medical Protection Society

In these scenarios, there is a real and significant risk that a clinical negligence claim would be brought against the doctor, with the clinician held wholly liable under the current product liability framework in the UK.

Why Does This Legal Gap Matter for Patient Trust?

Medical professionals worry that without clear legal accountability for AI developers and manufacturers, public confidence in both AI and medicine itself could erode. If doctors are blamed for technology failures beyond their control, patients may lose trust in the healthcare system. The Medical Protection Society is calling on the government to reclassify AI tools and systems as products, bringing them under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which would shift liability to developers and manufacturers rather than clinicians.

"Innovation and patient safety should move forward together. If AI is advancing at Formula One speed, then legislation, regulation and governance cannot be left sitting in the pit lane. Clinicians should not find themselves holding a liability hot potato when decisions have been influenced by AI systems developed, supplied and implemented by others without the appropriate structure," said Dr. Ragit Varia, president-elect of the Society for Acute Medicine.

Dr. Ragit Varia, President-Elect, Society for Acute Medicine

How to Establish Clear AI Accountability in Healthcare

• Reclassify AI as Products: Bring AI tools under consumer protection law so manufacturers and developers, not clinicians, bear liability for errors made by the technology itself.
• Establish Clinical Oversight Standards: Require clear protocols for how AI recommendations should be reviewed, validated, and integrated into clinical workflows to ensure doctors maintain appropriate control and judgment.
• Create Transparency Requirements: Mandate that AI developers disclose how their systems work, their accuracy rates, and known limitations so clinicians can make informed decisions about when and how to use them.
• Develop Regulatory Guidance: Work with regulators to create clear frameworks that define when AI errors constitute manufacturer liability versus clinical negligence, eliminating the current ambiguity.

The Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged the urgency of the issue. NHS Resolution, which handles negligence claims against hospitals in England, is currently drafting guidelines on AI liability. A spokesperson for the Department stated: "We welcome the MPS's report and will review its recommendations to ensure patients continue receiving the benefits of AI in healthcare safely and quickly".

Ahmed Binesmael, a senior policy analyst at the Health Foundation thinktank, emphasized the connection between accountability and public confidence. "Our research consistently shows that public confidence in AI depends not just on the technology itself, but on the safeguards and oversight that accompany it. As AI adoption grows across the NHS, ensuring clear accountability and robust governance will be essential to maintaining public trust and confidence," he noted.

The timing of this warning is critical. The NHS is expanding AI use across diagnostic imaging, clinical documentation, and patient communication at a rapid pace. Without legal clarity, the current system creates a perverse incentive: clinicians may become reluctant to use AI tools that could improve patient outcomes, fearing personal liability if something goes wrong. Conversely, AI developers have little incentive to ensure their systems are safe and accurate if they cannot be held responsible for errors. Resolving this accountability gap is essential to unlocking AI's potential in healthcare while protecting both patients and the professionals who care for them.