Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly common tool in healthcare, helping doctors interpret scans, summarize consultations, and recommend treatments. But a new report warns that as AI use expands across the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), doctors and hospitals could face medical negligence lawsuits if those systems make mistakes.
The warning comes from the Medical Protection Society (MPS), which says current UK laws leave clinicians potentially liable for patient harm caused by AI-assisted decisions, even when the error originates from the technology itself.
As the NHS continues integrating AI into patient care, the report argues that legal frameworks have not kept pace with rapid technological advances, creating uncertainty over who should be responsible when AI gets it wrong.
TL;DR
- A new Medical Protection Society (MPS) report warns doctors and the NHS could face negligence claims over AI-related errors.
- Current UK law may hold clinicians liable even if an AI system causes the mistake.
- The report cites examples such as missed cancers and incorrect medication recommendations.
- MPS wants AI systems classified as products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- The UK government says it will review the recommendations, while NHS Resolution is preparing guidance on AI liability.
Why is the MPS warning about AI liability?
The Medical Protection Society, which provides legal and professional support to healthcare professionals, says existing liability rules were designed before AI became part of everyday medical practice.
According to the organization, clinicians risk becoming a “liability sink,” meaning they could bear legal responsibility for mistakes even when they reasonably relied on approved AI tools.
Dr. Sarah Townley, deputy medical director at the MPS, said the law has struggled to keep up with technological change, and the rapid development of AI has widened the gap between innovation and regulation.
How is AI currently used in the NHS?
The NHS is increasingly adopting artificial intelligence to improve efficiency and support clinical decision-making.
Current applications include:
- Interpreting X-rays and medical scans.
- Detecting abnormalities in imaging.
- Summarizing doctor-patient consultations.
- Drafting clinical letters and patient correspondence.
- Assisting with treatment recommendations.
- Supporting administrative workflows.
While these tools can reduce workloads and improve productivity, most are intended to assist clinicians rather than replace their judgment.
What kinds of AI mistakes concern experts?
The MPS report highlights several scenarios where AI errors could have serious consequences.
Missed cancer diagnosis
One example involves an AI system reviewing a chest X-ray but failing to detect a lung tumor.
If clinicians rely on that incorrect result, the patient could receive false reassurance, delaying treatment until the cancer progresses.
Incorrect medication advice
Another example involves warfarin, a blood thinner commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation.
If an AI tool mistakenly recommends increasing the dosage, it could lead to severe internal bleeding requiring emergency surgery or intensive care.
According to the report, these types of errors could expose doctors and NHS organizations to negligence claims even when the AI system generated the faulty recommendation.
Why are doctors still legally responsible?
Under the UK’s current legal framework, clinicians remain responsible for the care they provide to patients.
That means if a doctor accepts an AI-generated recommendation that later proves harmful, a court could determine the clinician failed to exercise appropriate medical judgment.
The MPS argues that this creates an imbalance because AI developers and manufacturers may not face equivalent legal exposure under existing rules.
What changes does the report recommend?
The report urges the UK government to update liability laws as AI becomes more deeply embedded in healthcare.
Among its recommendations is classifying AI systems as products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
According to the MPS, this would:
- Clarify legal responsibility.
- Increase accountability for AI developers and manufacturers.
- Reduce unfair legal exposure for clinicians.
- Encourage safer AI development.
- Improve confidence in AI adoption across healthcare.
The organization says clearer legal rules would benefit patients, doctors, hospitals, and technology companies alike.
What has the UK government said?
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said it welcomes the MPS report and will review its recommendations.
It also confirmed that NHS Resolution, the body responsible for handling negligence claims involving NHS trusts in England, is developing guidance on AI-related liability.
Officials say the goal is to ensure patients continue benefiting from AI while maintaining safety and accountability.
Why this debate matters
Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform healthcare by improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing administrative burdens, and helping clinicians make faster decisions.
However, experts increasingly argue that successful adoption depends not only on better technology but also on clear legal and ethical frameworks.
Without well-defined rules, uncertainty over liability could discourage doctors from using AI tools or create confusion about who should be accountable when technology contributes to patient harm.
As healthcare systems around the world embrace AI, the UK debate could influence how other countries approach medical responsibility in the age of artificial intelligence.
