Doctors and the NHS could be sued for medical negligence over mistakes made by artificial intelligence tools used in diagnosing patients and suggesting their treatment, ministers are being warned. Under the law as it stands, medics and the health service can be held liable for patients being harmed or dying even if it was AI that made the errors that resulted in their suffering.
The Medical Protection Society, which represents doctors accused of wrongdoing, says in a report that medics could become the “liability sink” – a target of clinical negligence lawsuits – for mistakes made by AI unless the law is overhauled. The warning comes as the NHS deploys AI for an expanding range of tasks, including analysing scans and X-rays, generating summaries of doctors’ conversations with patients, and drafting letters to patients.
Giving concrete examples of how AI errors could lead to patient harm and subsequent legal claims, the MPS highlighted the case of a missed tumour. An AI system reading a chest X-ray could fail to spot a lung tumour, leading the patient to be falsely reassured. No treatment would be given, the cancer could spread, and the patient could die. In a separate scenario, an AI could wrongly recommend increasing a patient’s dose of warfarin, a blood thinner prescribed for the heart condition atrial fibrillation. That error could cause severe bleeding requiring surgery and intensive care.
In such scenarios, the MPS warned, there is a “real and significant risk” that a claim would be brought against a doctor in relation to the use of AI tools. “Under the current product liability framework in the UK, there is a risk that clinical negligence claims could be brought against the clinicians in these cases and that they would be held wholly liable,” the report states. The legal vulnerability is compounded by the absence of a dedicated law for artificial intelligence in the UK. AI governance in healthcare currently relies on existing frameworks such as human rights and equalities law, medical device regulations and UK GDPR – none of which were designed to address the unique challenges posed by adaptive, opaque algorithms.
The General Medical Council already expects doctors to critically assess all technology they use, including AI tools. If a doctor fails to question or override faulty AI advice, they could still be liable for medical negligence. But the opacity of “black-box” AI algorithms – where the decision-making process is hidden – makes it extremely difficult for clinicians to understand and explain how a particular conclusion was reached, further complicating any liability assessment. Hospitals could also face vicarious liability for the negligence of clinicians who incorrectly interpret AI outputs, especially when the patient sought care from the institution rather than a specific physician.
Proposed solution: reclassify AI as a product
The MPS is urging the government to reclassify AI tools and systems as products so they fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Doing so, it argues, would shift liability towards AI developers and manufacturers rather than leaving clinicians and the NHS carrying the full legal burden. Currently, proving a defect in an adaptive AI system is far more challenging than with traditional medical products because the software may change its behaviour over time based on new data.
“The law has always struggled to keep up with technological change. But with AI, the pace of change is so rapid that this gap feels less like a step and more like a widening gulf,” said Dr Sarah Townley, the MPS’s deputy medical director. The call for legislative action is echoed by other medical bodies. “Innovation and patient safety should move forward together. If AI is advancing at Formula One speed, then legislation, regulation and governance cannot be left sitting in the pit lane,” said Dr Ragit Varia, the president-elect of the Society for Acute Medicine. “Clinicians should not find themselves holding a liability hot potato when decisions have been influenced by AI systems developed, supplied and implemented by others without the appropriate structure. We must avoid creating an accountability vacuum where responsibility for harm is unclear.”
Medics across the UK are increasingly worried about being blamed for errors made by AI. Public trust in medicine may fall without action to make AI developers and manufacturers liable, they fear. The Health Foundation’s senior policy analyst, Ahmed Binesmael, said: “Our research consistently shows that public confidence in AI depends not just on the technology itself, but on the safeguards and oversight that accompany it. As AI adoption grows across the NHS, ensuring clear accountability and robust governance will be essential to maintaining public trust and confidence.”
The Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that NHS Resolution, which handles negligence claims against hospitals in England, is currently drafting guidelines on AI liability. A DHSC spokesperson said: “We welcome the MPS’s report and will review its recommendations to ensure patients continue receiving the benefits of AI in healthcare safely and quickly.” Separately, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency launched a National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare in September 2025, bringing together experts to advise on a new regulatory framework, with recommendations expected later this year.