America is rightly cautious about handing over the practice of medicine to cold software, and Dr. Chauncey Crandall put it plainly on Newsmax: A.I. is a powerful new tool, but it is not a replacement for human doctors. His warning lands like a wake-up call in an age when Silicon Valley types casually float the idea of making medical school “pointless” — medicine is about judgment, hands-on care, and moral responsibility, not just data processing.
Crandall’s credentials matter: a Yale-trained cardiologist who runs the Palm Beach Clinic of Preventive Medicine and Cardiology, he speaks from the bedside and the operating room, not from a tech incubator. He acknowledges A.I.’s usefulness in rapidly pulling research and clinical information, and he uses these tools in practice — but only as an adjunct to trained clinical judgment.
Conservative commonsense demands skepticism toward techno-utopianism, and Crandall’s experience underscores why: A.I. can be helpful, but it also makes mistakes and can deliver false or misleading information if unchecked. He’s seen examples where machine outputs needed a seasoned physician’s eye to sort truth from fiction, which proves the essential conservative point — expertise earned through experience and human responsibility cannot be outsourced to an algorithm.
If we value freedom and human dignity, we should defend medicine from becoming depersonalized by profit-driven tech giants and bureaucrats who would prefer cheaper, faster, and less accountable substitutes. Policymakers and patients must back policies that bolster medical training, preserve in-person care, and encourage innovations that empower clinicians rather than replace them. Dr. Crandall’s balanced stance — embrace useful tools, reject the idea that machines can shoulder moral and clinical responsibility — should guide conservatives who believe in both progress and prudence.
