The latest papal encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, addresses a critical issue: oversight of the state as it modernizes.
The patient behind the scan
A stroke patient arrives at an emergency room. Every minute lost means brain tissue dying. In Mexico’s Código Cerebro program, artificial intelligence analyzes the CT scan in under five minutes—far faster than the previous ninety. The neurologist makes the call. The patient walks out, talks, and hugs family. The encyclical would support this approach: the machine processed, the doctor decided. Technology assisted without replacing human judgment.
Not every technological advancement follows this model. In February, a legislative proposal acknowledged two realities: IMSS and ISSSTE already use AI to interpret medical images, yet the law intended to regulate it lacks even a definition of artificial intelligence. The 2026 Digital Health reform omits risk classification, mandatory audits, and clear accountability. The encyclical states that ethics alone are insufficient. What’s required are “adequate legal frameworks, independent oversight,” and a government that fulfills its responsibilities.
Much of the so-called “technological leap” in public health involves purchasing newer scanners with built-in AI—faster equipment that produces more images. While upgrading tools is necessary, it doesn’t constitute real change. An image alone doesn’t diagnose. A radiologist must interpret it, integrate findings into clinical decisions, explain results to the patient, and ensure proper treatment. Mexico faces a severe shortage of radiologists. The AI in these machines operates as a black box designed by manufacturers, with no oversight in the country. The law doesn’t address this gap.
More scans without increased capacity to interpret and act on them merely generate data. Dignity requires more: a timely reading, a decision, and someone accountable. The patient isn’t just a case study; they’re a person waiting for answers.
Who owns the data?
The new Universal Health Service pledges a single clinical record that follows the patient. The health card will store biometric data. This represents the body and medical history converted into digital form, consolidated under one authority that now oversees itself after the autonomous data protection agency was dissolved. The unresolved issue remains: does the data belong to the individual or the state?
Related: Focused engagement strategies drive Railpen stewardship success
A record that moves with the patient represents progress. However, guarantees relying on goodwill aren’t truly secure. Unlike a password, an iris cannot be reset after a breach.
The encyclical’s most pointed warning about virtual assistants isn’t their potential failure, but their capacity to replace human interaction. The real risk isn’t mistaking a chatbot for a person, but losing the desire to seek another human. In a system where consultations last mere minutes, the chatbot doesn’t compete with a strong doctor-patient relationship. It competes with absence, and in that void, simulation prevails.
Public policy should establish one principle: every health chatbot must create opportunities for human contact, not eliminate them. Doctors must legally retain the right to override algorithms. Only a physician with independent judgment can be held accountable for a patient. For an algorithm, an error is a technical issue. For a person, it can spark meaningful change. Requiring transparency about which systems operate, what they decide, independent audits, clear human responsibility, and an appeals process for every clinical decision isn’t excessive regulation. It’s dignity translated into practice. The encyclical describes this as making technology “debatable, refutable, and therefore habitable.”
When Nehemiah completed Jerusalem’s wall, he didn’t consider the work finished. He stationed guards at the gates. He understood a wall without oversight offers no real protection. That standard applies to any technological advancement: its first test is whether it allows scrutiny. Its ultimate measure isn’t algorithm speed, but whether it makes life more human. In healthcare, this translates to a simple requirement: at the end of every process, no matter how advanced the machine, there must always be someone accountable for another person.
Recent arrests in Temoac highlight the risks when oversight fails. The same principle applies to health systems—without clear accountability, even well-intentioned reforms can falter.
Leave a Reply