This study investigates the legal challenges posed by telesurgery, an emergent healthcare modality facilitated by advancements in 5G and Artificial Intelligence. It highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive legal framework reconciling the complexities of healthcare delivery and technology integration. The paper examines the Chinese adjudication of negligence and the evidentiary hurdles in telesurgery, interrogating the application of the ‘reasonable doctor’ standard, the intricate causation-negligence nexus and the distribution of evidentiary burdens. The analysis contends that current statutes require revision to apportion telesurgery-induced damages fairly. Further, it proposes the formation of multidisciplinary committees to oversee medical technology, calls for systemic reforms, more reasonable liability differentiation and fortifying medical insurance frameworks.
China Academy of Information and Communications Research (CAICR). White Paper on the Artificial Intelligence Medical Device Industry Development. 13 February 2023, http://www.aimd.org.cn/newsinfo/5295207.html(13 February 2023).
3.
BailoPGibelliFBlandinoA, et al.Telemedicine applications in the era of COVID-19: telesurgery issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 19: 323–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010323
Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations. 32 F.4th 1154, 2022.
6.
NaikNHameedBShettyD, et al.Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility?Front Surg2022; 9: 266–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322
7.
JinMLBrownMMPatwaD, et al.Telemedicine, telementoring, and telesurgery for surgical practices. Curr Probl Surg2021; 58: 100986.
8.
Yang. Conceptual study of liability for medical damage. Polit Sci Law2009; 3: 75–82.
9.
Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital. 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253, 14 A.L.R.3d 860, 1965.
10.
Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China (2018 Amendment).. 2018.
Stogsdill v. Manor Convalescent Home, Inc. 35 Ill. App. 3d 634.
14.
Small v. Howard. 128 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1935), 1935.
15.
Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Medical Malpractice Liabilities (2020 Amendment). 2021.
16.
Zong vs. Town Health Centre. Li Min Chu Zi No. 3077 Civil Judgement, 2012.
17.
YangL. The function and regulation adjustment of artificial intelligence product liability. Digit Law2023; 4: 27–39.
18.
NaikBSBasuA. The doctrine of “reasonable doctor” in medical negligence: need to be more reasonable. J Forensic Leg Med2022; 92: 102451.
19.
The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.
20.
Lei v. Nanjing Children’s Hospital. (2011) Ningmin Re-final No. 31, 2011.
21.
Du Jinshan, Du Wei v. Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University. (2023) Su 02 Civil Final No. 1974, 2023.
22.
Jones v. Chidester. 610 A.2d 964, 969, 1992.
23.
Fei Xuezhen, Yang Xiaonan and others v. the Fourth People’s Hospital of Wujiang District, Suzhou, China. (2015) Su Zhong Min Zi No. 04727, 2015.
24.
Zhou Hongjuan, Yang Kunkun and others v. Yixing People’s Hospital. (2020) Su 02 Min Jian 1120, 2020.
25.
XuZFanQ. Research on the judicial identification standard of artificial intelligence product defect. J Chongqing Univ Soc Sci Ed2022; 28: 257–269.
26.
AiE. China’s medical damage judicial appraisal standard reshaping. Huxiang Law Rev2023; 3: 102–118.
27.
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority. 4 All ER 771, 1997.
MoréteauO. Causal uncertainty and proportional liability in France. In: GileadI.GreenM. D.KochB. A. (eds) Proportional liability: analytical and comparative perspectives. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2013, pp. 1411–1152.
30.
SNITEM and Philips France v. Premier Ministre. CASE C-329/16, 2017.
