That is strange, since I don't have a theory. I have a principle. Primum non nocere.
Is it simpler than my principle?
You mean except for all things that can be explained to a computer? Because all Mathematical models of reality (e.g all the things Physics gives us) are computational and computable. It sure seems to me that we can explain chemistry to a computer
And we can explain to a computer how to diagnose common diseases..
We can also explain to a computer how to outperform human radiologists in diagnosing cancer.
So, by the Primum non nocere principle it seems to me that we should have computers helping diagnosticians do their jobs better?
It's so obvious, surely it requires no theory? Least we forget that in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Those who insist otherwise seek job security, not anything of human value. Academic 'ethicists', I imagine?