AI 医疗：把医生变成技术巨头的“责任垃圾桶”AI Healthcare: Turning Doctors into Liability Sinks for Tech Giants
这是一场典型的关于“责任定价权”的博弈。AI 开发者在极速推进技术落地，享受着所谓的创新红利，但当 AI 在诊断中漏掉肿瘤或开错药方时，法律上的责任却被精准地锚定在医生身上。所谓的“liability sink”（责任垃圾桶），本质上就是一种结构性暴力：技术巨头掌控了认知入口和产品定义权，却在风险到来时，将执行端的医生作为某种“生物防火墙”来挡在前面。
在这种共谋机制中，政府和医疗机构扮演了加速器的角色。他们急于用 AI 提高效率、降低成本，却在立法层面让法律在“维修区”原地打转。这种“速度差”不是意外，而是一种刻意的选择。当 AI 被定义为“工具”而非“产品”时，医生就成了这个系统的唯一担保人。这意味着，医生在博弈中处于绝对劣势——他们必须使用这些由他人开发、由上级强制推行的系统，却要为系统的随机错误支付职业生涯甚至自由的代价。
MPS 要求将 AI 重新分类为“产品”以适用消费者保护法，这看起来是某种救赎，但本质上是试图在 structural 层级上重新分配责任。如果责任依然由一个模糊的“指南”来引导，那么这种让步只是表演性的。真正的公正表达应该是：谁拥有技术定义的权力，谁就必须在法律上承担相应的、不可转嫁的风险。否则，所谓的“医疗创新”不过是一场由医生买单的商业 scam。
This is a classic game of 'pricing responsibility.' AI developers are accelerating deployment to reap innovation dividends, but when the AI misses a tumor or prescribes the wrong dose, the legal liability is precisely anchored to the doctor. The so-called 'liability sink' is essentially a form of structural violence: tech giants control the cognitive entry and product definition, yet use frontline clinicians as a 'biological firewall' when risks materialize.
In this mechanism of complicity, governments and health authorities act as accelerators. They are eager to use AI to boost efficiency and cut costs, while deliberately letting legislation idle in the 'pit lane.' This 'speed gap' is not an accident but a calculated choice. As long as AI is defined as a 'tool' rather than a 'product,' the doctor remains the system's sole guarantor. In this existential war, clinicians are at a total disadvantage—forced to use systems developed and implemented by others, yet paying the price for systemic errors with their careers or freedom.
The MPS demand to reclassify AI as 'products' under the Consumer Protection Act is an attempt to redistribute responsibility at the structural layer. However, if liability continues to be guided by vague 'guidelines,' this concession is merely performative. A Just Expression would be: whoever holds the power to define the technology must bear the corresponding, non-transferable legal risk. Otherwise, this so-called 'medical innovation' is nothing more than a commercial scam paid for by doctors.