The Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Jamaica to Assist Forensic Pathologists: Through an Ethical Lens

This article explores the implementation of artificial intelligence in the forensic field and how it would impact forensic pathologists in Jamaica. Forensic pathology plays an important role providing medical information about the cause, manner and time of death. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has many people questioning whether it will replace forensic pathologists with effective speed and eliminating human errors. Artificial intelligence is one of the most effective tools to assist forensic pathology with virtual autopsy, CT-scan and MRI.

Furthermore, artificial intelligence has become more effective. It raises many ethical concerns whether the ethical guidelines of forensic pathologists will decline or remain at the required standard. On the other hand, Aristotle has contributed significantly to the ethical world which left a remarkable print that connects with practicing ethical principles in forensic pathology. In line with this, The Medical Council Law of Jamaica enforces strict guidelines influenced by Aristotle to maintain trust, integrity, professionalism and respect.

This research study employs both qualitative and quantitative approach that utilizes a virtual survey which was conducted online, the participants expressed their trust levels with the implementation of artificial intelligence to assist forensic pathologists to provide speedy results and limit the destruction of evidence to support the legal processing of criminal justice.

The results indicated that 40% of the participants expressed their confidence in artificial intelligence assisting forensic pathologists with daily duties, 35% of the participants had moderate trust and 10% had little or no trust in artificial intelligence with the assistance of forensic duties due to the lack of human judgement and potential mass job displacement in the forensic field. However, due to the small sample size of the survey the participants’ responses were not diverse and may exposed to bias.