The motion
No vote has been recorded on this motion yet, so there is no aggregate figure to report. The positions and sources below still stand on the record.
The motion as tabled
Verbatim, as published by the member who took the floor.
AI has entered Indian clinical practice faster than the rules governing it. Triage tools, radiology assistance, transcription, differential generators, patient-facing chatbots — many of us already use something, formally or informally.
The liability question is unresolved. If an AI-assisted decision harms a patient, the doctor who signed the note is exposed. The hospital that procured the tool may not be. The vendor almost certainly disclaimed responsibility somewhere in its terms.
Three things I would like this assembly to work out:
One — should AI assistance be documented in the record? If a tool contributed to a diagnosis or a dose, does the note say so? There is a reasonable argument both ways, and I don't think our profession has settled it.
Two — what should a hospital be required to disclose before deploying a clinical AI tool: validation data, error rates, the population it was trained on?
Three — what would a workable consent standard look like when AI is involved in a patient's care?
I use AI tools myself and believe they will help us. That is exactly why the profession should define the rules of use before someone else defines them for us, in a courtroom, after a bad outcome.
Sources on the record
Guidelines, circulars, judgments and studies placed in the debate by verified members. EMERGE does not endorse them; it records who cited what.
- No sources have been placed on the record for this motion yet.
How these doctors were verified
The number above is only worth printing if the method behind it holds. It is set out in full here so it can be checked.
- Documents, not numbers. India's state medical councils issue registration certificates in differing formats, so a registration number alone proves little. EMERGE requires an uploaded medical degree certificate and a state council or NMC registration certificate.
- Human review. Each submission is reviewed by an administrator before a badge is issued. Documents are held in private storage and are not public.
- Verified-only participation. Only verified doctors may table a motion, reply, or vote. Reading is open to everyone.
- One doctor, one vote. Ballots are keyed to the verified account, so a member cannot vote twice. Individual votes are never exposed — the database returns aggregates only.
- Anonymity where it is needed, traceability behind it. In resident-welfare and workplace-violence categories a doctor may post without a name. The authorship link is retained internally, visible only to administrators, so that abuse can be acted on without unmasking anyone publicly.
- What this is not. A poll of self-selected members of one platform is not a representative sample of Indian doctors, and EMERGE does not claim to speak for the profession. It reports what its verified members said, and how many.
For editors: the honest formulation is “of the 0 verified doctors who voted on EMERGE VOICE” — not “of Indian doctors”. We would rather be quoted accurately than widely.
Cite this
Reproduction is free, in any medium, with attribution and a working link.
EMERGE VOICE — the professional assembly of Indian medicine.
Press and verification queries: contact the desk.