The Black Box Clinic
How Opacity in AI Systems Collapses Transparency, Accountability, and Trust.
When Medicine Stops Explaining Itself
Modern medicine is built on explanation. Diagnosis requires justification, treatment demands rationale, and consent presupposes understanding. Yet AI-assisted healthcare increasingly operates in direct violation of this epistemic foundation. Across hospitals, decision-support systems now issue recommendations that cannot be meaningfully interrogated by clinicians, patients, or regulators. These systems work—but they do not explain.
London (2019) describes this as the central ethical rupture of AI in medicine: accuracy has been prioritized over intelligibility. High-performing models deliver predictions without reasons, probabilities without logic, and outcomes without narratives. The clinic becomes a site where decisions are rendered rather than reasoned, and where explanation is replaced by statistical authority.
This is not a theoretical concern. It is a structural transformation of how medicine knows what it knows.
The Architecture of Opacity
The opacity of medical AI is not accidental. Many high-performing models—particularly deep neural networks—are inherently difficult to interpret. Rudin (2019) argues that the continued deployment of black-box models in high-stakes clinical contexts represents a governance failure, not a technical inevitability. Interpretable alternatives exist, but they are routinely sidelined in favor of marginal performance gains.
Sendak et al. (2020) demonstrate how this opacity becomes entrenched during translation from development to deployment. Once integrated into clinical workflows, models are treated as fixed infrastructure rather than contestable hypotheses. Clinicians interact with outputs, not assumptions. Hospitals adopt systems they cannot audit. The black box hardens.
Amann et al. (2020) emphasize that explainability is not a single technical feature but a relational requirement. What a data scientist considers “interpretable” is often meaningless to a clinician facing a patient in distress. The failure to align explainability with clinical context converts AI from decision support into decision displacement.
Clinicians Under Algorithmic Authority
The Black Box Clinic does not remove clinicians from decision-making; it reshapes their role. Khosravi et al. (2024) describe AI as a cognitive partner, yet in practice this partnership is asymmetric. The algorithm speaks with confidence. The clinician is expected to comply—or justify dissent without access to the system’s internal logic.
Jacobs et al. (2021) provide empirical evidence of this dynamic. When clinicians are presented with algorithmic treatment recommendations, their choices shift measurably—even when the recommendation conflicts with their initial judgment. The influence is subtle, statistical, and cumulative. Over time, clinical discretion erodes not through coercion, but through deference.
Abdelwanis et al. (2024) name this phenomenon automation bias: the tendency to over-trust algorithmic outputs in high-pressure environments. In the Black Box Clinic, this bias is magnified by opacity. Clinicians cannot critically evaluate what they cannot see. Error detection weakens. Responsibility blurs.
Consent Without Comprehension—Again
Opacity does not end at the clinician’s desk; it extends to the patient. Informed consent presumes that patients understand the basis of decisions affecting their bodies and lives. Yet when AI systems contribute to diagnoses or treatment plans without explanation, consent becomes performative.
McCradden et al. (2020) argue that AI-assisted decision-making introduces a new ethical category: decisions that are technically justified but experientially inaccessible. Patients may consent to outcomes without understanding processes. Trust replaces comprehension—not because trust has been earned, but because alternatives are unavailable.
This is not informed consent. It is epistemic submission.
The Accountability Collapse
When harm occurs in the Black Box Clinic, responsibility becomes elusive. Pham (2025) demonstrates that existing legal frameworks are ill-equipped to assign liability in AI-assisted care. Developers point to clinicians. Clinicians point to tools. Institutions point to vendors. Regulators point to guidelines. The patient is left navigating a fog of plausible deniability.
Nouis et al. (2025) describe this as an accountability vacuum produced by opacity. When decision pathways cannot be reconstructed, audits fail. When reasoning cannot be traced, responsibility cannot be fixed. Transparency is not merely an ethical preference—it is a prerequisite for justice.
Radanliev et al. (2025) further warn that opacity undermines public trust in health systems. Trust is not sustained by outcomes alone; it depends on intelligibility and contestability. Black-box systems ask patients and clinicians to accept decisions they cannot challenge. Over time, this corrodes institutional legitimacy.
Accuracy Versus Explainability: A False Trade-Off
Defenders of black-box AI often invoke a trade-off: that explainability necessarily compromises accuracy. Rudin (2019) rejects this framing outright, arguing that the choice to deploy opaque models is frequently driven by convenience, vendor incentives, and institutional inertia rather than empirical necessity.
Tonekaboni et al. (2019) reinforce this point from the clinical perspective. Clinicians do not demand perfect explanations; they demand usable ones. They want to know which variables mattered, which uncertainties remain, and where human judgment should intervene. The failure to provide this information is not a technical limitation—it is a design choice.
Read also: AI & Health: Who Controls the Cure?—Part 2
The Ethical Cost of Speed
Topol (2019) warns that the rush to adopt AI risks outrunning ethical reflection. Speed is rewarded. Caution is penalized. In this environment, opacity becomes normalized as the price of innovation. Yet Cabitza et al. (2017) demonstrate that unintended consequences multiply when systems are deployed without rigorous interpretive safeguards.
The Black Box Clinic is efficient—but efficiency without explainability is brittle. When systems fail, they fail silently. When bias emerges, it hides behind complexity. When trust erodes, institutions are left asking why patients no longer believe them.
Why the Black Box Is a Governance Failure
The persistence of opaque AI in healthcare is not primarily a technical problem. It is a governance choice. Institutions accept systems they cannot explain because procurement frameworks prioritize performance metrics over epistemic accountability. Regulators tolerate opacity because standards lag deployment. Vendors resist transparency because proprietary advantage depends on secrecy.
Singhal (2024) argues that fairness, accountability, and transparency must be operationalized, not proclaimed. Without enforceable transparency requirements, the Black Box Clinic will become the default architecture of care.
The Forensic Conclusion
The Black Box Clinic marks a decisive break in the moral economy of medicine. Decisions once grounded in explainable reasoning are increasingly mediated by systems that cannot justify themselves. Accountability diffuses. Consent thins. Trust decays.
AI does not merely assist medicine in this configuration—it redefines authority. And authority without explanation is power without responsibility.
This chapter establishes the clinical consequences of opacity. The next investigation moves upstream, to the political and regulatory arena, where states struggle—and often fail—to govern systems they cannot see.
Professor MarkAnthony Ujunwa Nze is an internationally acclaimed investigative journalist, public intellectual, and global governance analyst whose work shapes contemporary thinking at the intersection of health and social care management, media, law, and policy. Renowned for his incisive commentary and structural insight, he brings rigorous scholarship to questions of justice, power, and institutional integrity.
Based in New York, he serves as a full tenured professor and Academic Director at the New York Center for Advanced Research (NYCAR), where he leads high-impact research in governance innovation, strategic leadership, and geopolitical risk. He also oversees NYCAR’s free Health & Social Care professional certification programs, accessible worldwide at:
https://www.newyorkresearch.org/professional-certification/
Professor Nze remains a defining voice in advancing ethical leadership and democratic accountability across global systems.
Selected Sources (APA 7th Edition)
Abdelwanis, M., et al. (2024). Exploring the risks of automation bias in healthcare. ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666449624000410
Amann, J., Blasimme, A., Vayena, E., Frey, D., & Madai, V. I. (2020). Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20, Article 310.
https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
Cabitza, F., Rasoini, R., & Gensini, G. F. (2017). Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA, 318(6), 517–518.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2648638
Jacobs, M., Pradier, M. F., McCoy, T. H., Perlis, R. H., Doshi-Velez, F., & Ghassemi, M. (2021). How machine-learning recommendations influence clinician treatment selections: The example of antidepressant selection. Translational Psychiatry, 11, Article 108.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-021-01224-x
Khosravi, M., et al. (2024). Artificial intelligence and decision-making in healthcare. PMC.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10916499/
London, A. J. (2019). Artificial intelligence and black-box medical decisions: Accuracy versus explainability. Hastings Center Report, 49(1), 15–21.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.973
McCradden, M. D., Joshi, S., Anderson, J. A., & Goldenberg, A. (2020). Clinical decision support and artificial intelligence: Ethical challenges. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), e16561.
https://www.jmir.org/2020/3/e16561/
Nouis, S. C. E., et al. (2025). Evaluating accountability, transparency, and bias in AI-assisted healthcare decision-making. BMC Medical Ethics, 26, Article 43.
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-025-01243-z
Pham, T. (2025). Ethical and legal considerations in healthcare AI. Royal Society Open Science, 12(1), 241873.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241873
Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Walton, R., & Van Kleek, M. (2025). Privacy, ethics, transparency, and accountability in AI: Considerations for health and society. Frontiers in Digital Health, 7, 1431246.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1431246/full
Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-019-0048-x
Sendak, M. P., D’Arcy, J., Kashyap, S., Gao, M., Nichols, M., Corey, K., … Balu, S. (2020). A path for translation of machine learning products into healthcare delivery. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3, Article 1.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0192-0
Singhal, A. (2024). Toward fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in healthcare AI. Journal of Medical Internet Research.
https://medinform.jmir.org/2024/1/e50048/
Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25, 44–56.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0300-7
Tonekaboni, S., Joshi, S., McCradden, M. D., & Goldenberg, A. (2019). What clinicians want: Contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 106, 359–380.
https://proceedings.mlr.press/v106/tonekaboni19a.html
