This is a good example of why initiatives that are taken solely in the name of central government finances are a bad idea. The debate must be based on information produced by research institutes and led by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Otherwise, the debate will be based on very shaky grounds.
To put it more bluntly: number crunchers should not try to act as experts on artificial intelligence in social care and healthcare services. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for steering central government finances, but it must do so with a sufficiently long-term framework to allow technology to be adopted responsibly, safely and ethically, particularly when it comes to social care and healthcare services. The development of work, on the other hand, falls within the area of responsibility of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, which oversees social care and healthcare services. Cobbler, stick to your last!
As a side note, I would like to add that we need training in the use of artificial intelligence, and we must keep our skills up to date in this rapidly evolving field of technology. This is yet another reason why we need a replacement model for the discontinued adult education allowance.
Artificial intelligence is welcome, but it is not the answer to everything
Medicine and nursing practices have always embraced new technology; in that sense, there is nothing new about artificial intelligence.
However, the adoption of artificial intelligence must be carried out in a controlled manner, such as through a national AI programme, as proposed by Local Government and County Employers KT. At present, each region is doing as it sees fit, and I do not think that anyone really knows where we are right now.
The current debate on artificial intelligence is rather vague with regard to what its adoption in contexts such as hospitals would actually entail in terms of basic matters alone: Everything that is introduced in healthcare services and in hospitals must be based on evidence and research. We cannot carry out trial runs on patients or eliminate second-rate results through quality control. The security of sensitive and personal patient data is also a major issue.
Taking a leaf out of our neighbour’s book
It would be a good idea to once again take a look at how our neighbour is doing things. There, the approach to artificial intelligence is far more ambitious: Sweden aims to be a world leader in the use of artificial intelligence in public administration. Could Finland also take a more visionary approach to this issue, rather than focusing on short-term savings?
Must all the time that is freed up by artificial intelligence be allocated to cost savings, or could we also consider using it to otherwise improve the quality of care, such as the way we interact with people? After all, that is precisely what nursing is all about.
Tehy’s Ethics Committee put it very well a few years ago: Human interaction, empathy, professional evaluation and decision-making are features that cannot be replaced with a machine and will remain in the capable hands of social care and healthcare professionals.
Even with the help of artificial intelligence, the responsibility ultimately lies with the professionals in our field.
