The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing

Autonomous AI systems are transitioning from advisory to autonomous roles for medication prescriptions. Recent United States bill H.R. 238 and Utah's prescription-renewal pilot both authorize AI to prescribe medications in an agentic capacity. While some regulatory guidelines suggest aggregate model performance metrics for clearance, they do not require i) calibrated per-prediction confidence for action-gated thresholds, ii) differentiated communication of uncertainty arising from model ignorance (epistemic) versus genuine clinical ambiguity (aleatoric), and iii) inferential transparency at the moment of decision that allows for liability allocation. Here, we present a regulatory and technical argument (tested with a survey of 136 U.S. prescribing clinicians) positioning these as minimum architectural requirements for safe autonomous prescribing. Our results suggest prescribing clinicians i) would not permit autonomous prescribing without a calibrated confidence-based escalation mechanism, ii) preferred a competing-options summary when uncertainty was aleatoric but shifted to abstention when uncertainty was epistemic, and iii) were only willing to accept additional liability when inferential transparency enabled a substantive judgment under acknowledged uncertainty. These findings indicate our recommended architectural features would encourage higher rates of clinician adoption, largely through collapsing much of what "autonomy" conventionally means. A system meeting these requirements would function less as an autonomous agent and more as a heavily supervised decision-support tool. As legislation and state pilots proceed, our technical argument backed by clinician perspectives provides opportunities for regulation to constrain the degree of autonomy ethically granted to AI in prescribing while aligning liability with the institutional actors who control system design and deployment.