“人工智能+”医疗服务管理中的侵权责任研究
Study on Tort Liability in the Management of “Artificial Intelligence +” Medical Services
DOI: 10.12677/ass.2025.147582, PDF,   
作者: 宋玥珊*:西南医科大学法学院,四川 泸州;梁 燕:甘肃省高级人民法院,甘肃 兰州
关键词: 人工智能医疗服务管理侵权责任黑箱难题合理医生标准Artificial Intelligence Health Care Management Tort Liability Black Box Conundrum Reasonable Physician Standard
摘要: 研究旨在解决人工智能应用于医疗服务管理时衍生的侵权责任认定困境,通过法律规范分析与医疗风险分类方法,提出系统性解决方案。研究首先确立人工智能的客体属性与辅助地位,针对医疗人工智能产品的内在技术风险,建议构建理性算法标准界定产品缺陷,要求开发者在可控范围内优化算法透明度,同步设立医疗器械缺陷专项鉴定机构,并引入无过错补偿机制平衡技术创新与患者权益保护。针对临床应用的外在操作风险,采用合理医生标准明确医务人员的再判断义务,通过诊疗行为合规性审查确保责任认定客观性。研究结果表明,通过构建双重风险应对框架,能有效厘清产品责任与诊疗损害的归责边界,建立兼顾技术发展、医疗安全与法律公平的治理范式,为人工智能医疗系统的规范化应用提供制度保障。
Abstract: The study aims to solve the dilemma of determining tort liability derived from the application of artificial intelligence in medical service management, and proposes a systematic solution through the analysis of legal norms and medical risk classification methods. The study first establishes the object attributes and auxiliary status of AI, and for the intrinsic technical risks of medical AI products, it suggests constructing rational algorithmic standards to define product defects, requiring developers to optimize algorithmic transparency within a controllable range, setting up a special appraisal agency for medical device defects, and introducing a no-fault compensation mechanism to balance technological innovation and the protection of patients’ rights and interests. For the external operational risk of clinical application, it is recommended to adopt the rational doctor standard to clarify the re-judgment obligation of medical personnel, and to ensure the objectivity of responsibility determination through the compliance review of diagnostic and therapeutic behaviors. The results of the study show that by constructing a dual-risk response framework, the boundaries between product liability and diagnostic and therapeutic damages can be effectively clarified, and a governance paradigm that takes into account the development of technology, medical safety, and legal fairness can be established, which provides a systematic guarantee for the standardization of the application of AI medical systems.
文章引用:宋玥珊, 梁燕. “人工智能+”医疗服务管理中的侵权责任研究[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2025, 14(7): 14-21. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2025.147582

参考文献

[1] 钟晓雯, 高洁. “人工智能 + 医疗”的风险研判及治理路径[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2024, 60(4): 29-41.
[2] 周学峰. 论人工智能的风险规制[J]. 比较法研究, 2024(6): 42-56.
[3] 张家骥, 铁伊然, 周鑫. 人工智能侵权责任主体认定——以自动驾驶为例[J]. 江汉学术, 2025, 44(1): 107-117.
[4] 麦考密克. 法律制度: 对法律理论的一种解说[M]. 陈锐, 王琳, 等, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2019: 128.
[5] 房绍坤, 林广会. 人工智能民事主体适格性之辨思[J]. 苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 39(5): 64-72, 191.
[6] 郑志峰. 诊疗人工智能的医疗损害责任[J]. 中国法学, 2023(1): 203-221.
[7] 马驰. 谁可以成为法律主体——兼谈人工智能的法律主体资格问题[J]. 甘肃社会科学, 2022(4): 129-141.
[8] 夏光辉, 曹艳林, 陈炳澍, 等. 大模型人工智能技术在医疗服务领域应用的专家共识[J]. 中国卫生法制, 2023, 31(5): 124-126.
[9] 徐明, 张津铭. 医疗人工智能的法治化规制[EB/OL].
https://www.cssn.cn/skgz/bwyc/202502/t20250218_5845054.shtml, 2025-05-28.
[10] 王海容. 医疗AI侵权责任的法解释学分析[J]. 医学与法学, 2022, 14(1): 14-21.
[11] 王涵, 陈敏. 医疗人工智能政策法律分析及对策研究[J]. 中国数字医学, 2021, 16(12): 73-77.
[12] 高其才. 法理学[M]. 第4版. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2021: 206.
[13] 徐恪, 李沁. 算法统治世界: 智能经济的隐形秩序[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2017: 11.
[14] 胡巧莉. 人工智能服务提供者侵权责任要件的类型构造——以风险区分为视角[J]. 比较法研究, 2024(6): 57-71.
[15] 徐着雨, 岳远雷. 医疗人工智能算法风险防范的法治化思考[J]. 医学与哲学, 2023, 44(11): 67-71.
[16] 贾振宇. 否定论视角下人工智能法律主体地位的思辨与规则构想[J]. 山西青年职业学院学报, 2024, 37(2): 67-72, 85.
[17] 王春梅. 人工智能法律地位的争论、误区与破解[J]. 学术交流, 2025(1): 59-72.
[18] 王磊, 周徐. 人工智能视野下医疗机器人的侵权责任分配[J]. 中国卫生法制, 2023, 31(2): 23-31.
[19] 蔡恒进. 行为主义、联结主义和符号主义的贯通[J].上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2020, 49(4): 87-96.
[20] Price, W., Nicholson, I.I. and Cohen, I.G. (2023) Locating Liability for Medical AI. DePaul Law Review, 73, Article 339.
[21] 吉萍, 郭锐, 许卫卫, 等. 医疗人工智能产品研发的伦理审查与法律考量[J]. 医学与哲学, 2020, 41(5): 15-18.
[22] 陈子瑜, 程国斌. 医疗人工智能中的算法黑箱及其核心伦理问题[J]. 医学与哲学, 2024, 45(12): 6-10.
[23] Maliha, G., Gerke, S., Cohen, I.G. and Parikh, R.B. (2021) Artificial Intelligence and Liability in Medicine: Balancing Safety and Innovation. The Milbank Quarterly, 99, 629-647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Haden, C. (2024) The Consequences of the AI Act and Proposed AI Liability Directive on Medical Negligence: Will Physicians Fall Victim to ‘Red Tape’ Rules? Oslo Law Review, 11, 1-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef