I think this sort of service would be OK with informed consent. I would actually be a little surprised if there were much difference in patient outcomes.

…And it turns out it has been studied with findings that AI work, but humans are better.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871827/

▲

amanaplanacanal 4 days ago | parent [-]

Usually when it comes to medical stuff, things don't get approved unless they are better than existing therapies. With the shortage of mental health care in the US, maybe an exception should be made. This is a tough one. We like to think that nobody should have to get second rate medical care, even though that's the reality.

▲

taneq 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think a good analogy would be a cheap, non-medically-approved (but medical style) ultrasound. Maybe it’s marketed as a “novelty”, maybe you have to sign a waiver saying it won’t be used for diagnostic purposes, whatever.

You know that it’s going to get used as a diagnostic tool, and you know that people are going to die because of this. Under our current medical ethics, you can’t do this. Maybe we should re-evaluate this, but that opens the door to moral hazard around cheap unreliable practices. It’s not straightforward.

	▲	fc417fc802 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Moral hazard? Versus not getting even a diagnostic, let alone care, because someone couldn't afford it? Versus self determination? A clear upfront statement of what the product is not ought to suffice. What we have isn't motivated by protection from moral hazard (at least IMO). It's a guild system that restricts even vaguely related access and practices in (I'd argue) an overly broad manner. To be clear I don't object to the guild in this case. Only to the overly broad fence surrounding it.