Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!forbus From: forbus@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: re: liability for expert systems Message-ID: <5500010@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 21:58:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.5500010 Posted: Mon Oct 8 21:58:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 04:35:57 EDT References: <57@cadre.UUCP> Lines: 9 Nf-ID: #R:cadre:-5700:uiucdcsb:5500010:000:434 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!forbus Oct 8 20:58:00 1984 Actually, the closest analog to expert systems in current medical practice are equipment used in performing laboratory tests. Doing them properly (and under the proper circumstances) is covered for liability purposes by the idea of an "approved medical procedure". There are, or so I'm told, standard ways of getting such "procedures" approved, and this might be the best route for programmers wishing to avoid malpractice suits.