One of my arguments was that algorithms could make the implementation of medicine and healthcare much easier, but they are still unable to replace actual practitioners. The source Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Applications, implications, and limitations, written by Greenfield in 2019, supports this argument. The link to this source can be found at http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/artificial-intelligence-in-medicine-applications-implications-and-limitations/.
A counter-argument to this could be that with the amount that technology is exponentially advancing, it is hard to predict whether it could improve to the point where it could replace health practitioners. However, it is important to note that it is not this simple, for there are many regulations that also must be addressed, and many ethics issues are things that cannot be programmed but must instead be decided by an expert or professional. For example, ethics issues such as whether to save the mother or the baby during childbirth poses a huge issue and is often up to the discretion of the practitioner based on morals and chances of survival.
I think your counter argument could be expanded in detail some–“hard to predict” in what way? What would need to happen, or what would improvement mean in the sense that it would replace health practitioners? I do like that you then move to talk about ethics, and the importance of having a person, not a program, still be in charge of certain aspects. I like also that you gave a specific example of such a case.