Hm, I think the bigger issue presented is that the algorithm in question is heavily biased against younger patients -- it deviates significantly from an ideal utilitarian model.
Right, so there was a flawed implementation. Even if you had democratic consent to "implement a utilitarian organ matching mode", that would not prevent this failure mode.
So what is the governance and oversight framework for ensuring democratic consent from ideation to implementation to monitoring, and how does it differ from what the UK did? The article points out that there were multiple reviews of the algorithm that identified this bias all the way back in 2019. What is the process that connects that feedback with the democratic process to ensure that flawed implementations never deploy, or are adjusted quickly.
So what is the governance and oversight framework for ensuring democratic consent from ideation to implementation to monitoring, and how does it differ from what the UK did? The article points out that there were multiple reviews of the algorithm that identified this bias all the way back in 2019. What is the process that connects that feedback with the democratic process to ensure that flawed implementations never deploy, or are adjusted quickly.