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.