AI-Enhanced Healthcare: Not a new Paradigm for Informed Consent.

IF 1.8 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s11673-023-10320-0

M Pruski

{"title":"AI-Enhanced Healthcare: Not a new Paradigm for Informed Consent.","authors":"M Pruski","doi":"10.1007/s11673-023-10320-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital technologies in healthcare, the ethical debate surrounding their adoption is becoming more prominent. Here I consider the issue of gaining informed patient consent to AI-enhanced care from the vantage point of the United Kingdom's National Health Service setting. I build my discussion around two claims from the World Health Organization: that healthcare services should not be denied to individuals who refuse AI-enhanced care and that there is no precedence to seeking patient consent to AI-enhanced care. I discus U.K. law relating to patient consent and the General Data Protection Regulation to show that current standards relating to patient consent are adequate for AI-enhanced care. I then suggest that in the future it may not be possible to guarantee patient access to non-AI-enhanced healthcare, in a similar way to how we do not offer patients manual alternatives to automated healthcare processes. Throughout my discussion I focus on the issues of patient choice and veracity in the patient-clinician relationship. Finally, I suggest that the best way to protect patients from potential harms associated with the introduction of AI to patient care is not via an overly burdensome patient consent process but via evaluation and regulation of AI technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10320-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital technologies in healthcare, the ethical debate surrounding their adoption is becoming more prominent. Here I consider the issue of gaining informed patient consent to AI-enhanced care from the vantage point of the United Kingdom's National Health Service setting. I build my discussion around two claims from the World Health Organization: that healthcare services should not be denied to individuals who refuse AI-enhanced care and that there is no precedence to seeking patient consent to AI-enhanced care. I discus U.K. law relating to patient consent and the General Data Protection Regulation to show that current standards relating to patient consent are adequate for AI-enhanced care. I then suggest that in the future it may not be possible to guarantee patient access to non-AI-enhanced healthcare, in a similar way to how we do not offer patients manual alternatives to automated healthcare processes. Throughout my discussion I focus on the issues of patient choice and veracity in the patient-clinician relationship. Finally, I suggest that the best way to protect patients from potential harms associated with the introduction of AI to patient care is not via an overly burdensome patient consent process but via evaluation and regulation of AI technologies.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

人工智能增强医疗：不是知情同意的新范式。

随着人工智能（AI）和其他数字技术在医疗保健领域的日益普及，围绕其应用的伦理辩论也变得越来越突出。在此，我将从英国国民健康服务的角度出发，探讨如何获得患者对人工智能增强型医疗服务的知情同意。我围绕世界卫生组织的两个主张展开讨论：一是不应拒绝为拒绝人工智能增强型医疗服务的个人提供医疗服务；二是寻求患者对人工智能增强型医疗服务的同意没有先例可循。我讨论了与患者同意有关的英国法律和《通用数据保护条例》，以说明目前与患者同意有关的标准足以满足人工智能增强型医疗的要求。然后，我提出，未来可能无法保证患者获得非人工智能增强型医疗服务，就像我们无法为患者提供人工替代自动医疗流程一样。在整个讨论过程中，我将重点放在患者与医生关系中的患者选择和真实性问题上。最后，我建议，保护患者免受与将人工智能引入患者护理相关的潜在伤害的最佳方式不是通过过于繁琐的患者同意程序，而是通过对人工智能技术的评估和监管。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学：伦理

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies

期刊最新文献

Reflections from the Editors-in-Chief. The Role of Ethics Committees in Charity Care Allocation. Meaningful and Successful Ethical Enactments: A Proposal from Deliberative Wisdom Theory. Priorities in the Protection of Citizens Who Have Fallen into Enemy Hands. "Expensive Sisters".