No abstract

While artificial intelligence (AI) offers the promise of liberating humans from mundane labor, it also has the potential to create an unemployment problem in various economic sectors, including the healthcare industry. Exactly how AI will or should be used within the context of healthcare has emerged as an important ethical question. This article shows how a surplus of human resources will arise from the introduction of AI in the healthcare system and explains how medical resource should be allocated. It is argued that the surplus of human resources caused by the introduction of AI in healthcare should be used for those patients that receive the fewest benefits from the healthcare system.

The purposes of this article are to examine the ethical issues surrounding the concept of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and to determine what criteria should be used for distributing medical resources. The article examines the views of John Harris, Peter Singer, and Norman Daniels, and argues that the fairness of the process is more important than the legitimacy of the result in distributing medical resources. The argument is based on the belief that each individual life is important as well as the fact that results are often unpredictable. However, it is also noted that too much emphasis on the fairness of the process can result in a waste of medical resources.