Triage 4.0: On Death Algorithms and Technological Selection. Is Today's Data- Driven Medical System Still Compatible with the Constitution?

Journal of European CME Pub Date : 2021-11-17 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21614083.2021.1989243
Dirk Helbing, Thomas Beschorner, Bruno Frey, Andreas Diekmann, Thilo Hagendorff, Peter Seele, Sarah Spiekermann-Hoff, Jeroen van den Hoven, Andrej Zwitter
{"title":"Triage 4.0: On Death Algorithms and Technological Selection. Is Today's Data- Driven Medical System Still Compatible with the Constitution?","authors":"Dirk Helbing, Thomas Beschorner, Bruno Frey, Andreas Diekmann, Thilo Hagendorff, Peter Seele, Sarah Spiekermann-Hoff, Jeroen van den Hoven, Andrej Zwitter","doi":"10.1080/21614083.2021.1989243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health data bear great promises for a healthier and happier life, but they also make us vulnerable. Making use of millions or billions of data points, Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are now creating new benefits. For sure, harvesting Big Data can have great potentials for the health system, too. It can support accurate diagnoses, better treatments and greater cost effectiveness. However, it can also have undesirable implications, often in the sense of undesired side effects, which may in fact be terrible. Examples for this, as discussed in this article, are discrimination, the mechanisation of death, and genetic, social, behavioural or technological selection, which may imply eugenic effects or social Darwinism. As many unintended effects become visible only after years, we still lack sufficient criteria, long-term experience and advanced methods to reliably exclude that things may go terribly wrong. Handing over decision-making, responsibility or control to machines, could be dangerous and irresponsible. It would also be in serious conflict with human rights and our constitution.</p>","PeriodicalId":87300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European CME","volume":"10 1","pages":"1989243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/34/62/ZJEC_10_1989243.PMC8604483.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2021.1989243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health data bear great promises for a healthier and happier life, but they also make us vulnerable. Making use of millions or billions of data points, Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are now creating new benefits. For sure, harvesting Big Data can have great potentials for the health system, too. It can support accurate diagnoses, better treatments and greater cost effectiveness. However, it can also have undesirable implications, often in the sense of undesired side effects, which may in fact be terrible. Examples for this, as discussed in this article, are discrimination, the mechanisation of death, and genetic, social, behavioural or technological selection, which may imply eugenic effects or social Darwinism. As many unintended effects become visible only after years, we still lack sufficient criteria, long-term experience and advanced methods to reliably exclude that things may go terribly wrong. Handing over decision-making, responsibility or control to machines, could be dangerous and irresponsible. It would also be in serious conflict with human rights and our constitution.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分类4.0:关于死亡算法和技术选择。今天的数据驱动的医疗系统仍然与宪法兼容吗?
健康数据为我们带来更健康、更幸福的生活带来了巨大的希望,但它们也让我们变得脆弱。利用数百万或数十亿个数据点,机器学习(ML)和人工智能(AI)现在正在创造新的好处。当然,获取大数据对卫生系统也有很大的潜力。它可以支持准确的诊断、更好的治疗和更高的成本效益。然而,它也可能产生不希望的影响,通常是不希望的副作用,这实际上可能很可怕。如本文所述,这方面的例子包括歧视、死亡机制以及基因、社会、行为或技术选择,这可能意味着优生学效应或社会达尔文主义。由于许多意想不到的影响在几年后才显现出来,我们仍然缺乏足够的标准、长期经验和先进的方法来可靠地排除事情可能会出现严重错误的可能性。将决策权、责任或控制权交给机器可能是危险和不负责任的。这也将与人权和我国宪法发生严重冲突。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Net Promoter Score (NPS): What Does Net Promoter Score Offer in the Evaluation of Continuing Medical Education? Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study. A European Approach to Micro-credentials for Lifelong Learning and Employability. Leading Change Together: Supporting Collaborative Practice through Joint Accreditation for Interprofessional Continuing Education. Preparing the Leaders of Tomorrow: Learnings from a Two-Year Community of Practice in Fragility Fractures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1