Artificial intelligence and the caring relationship: ethical profiles

Main Article Content

Rosagemma Ciliberti
Valeria Schiavone
Linda Alfano

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, black box, ethics of AI, doctor-patient relationship, emerging technologies, opacity, machine learning

Abstract


Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare can offer multiple and discordant contributions.  These technologies may enable health workers to reduce the time needed for routine bureaucratic activities, sometimes sterile and distracting regarding the interests of the sick person and allow them to increase the patient's listening space and willingness to engage in a caring relationship. On the other hand, this automated cognitive assistance may also reduce or undermine the relational skills and abilities of the healthcare staff themselves.




For these reasons, the impact of AI on clinical care and the doctor-patient relationship requires careful ethical consideration. There is a need to develop ethical criteria to protect patients' self-determination, ensuring transparency, equality of opportunity, privacy and safety. Therefore, a primary focus should be on training healthcare personnel in technological, ethical and social issues. In addition, special attention should also be paid to enhancing ethical discussion in the training courses of engineers, computer scientists and developers, with particular reference to the impact of design in the application of technologies on humans. Finally, the authors emphasize the need to foster a growing awareness in the population of the opportunities and risks of new technologies.


Abstract 72 | PDF Downloads 65

References

1. Oosthuizen RM. The Fourth Industrial Revolution–Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Algorithms: Industrial Psychologists in Future Workplaces. Front Artif Intell 2022; 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2022.913168/full.
2. Ceruti M, Damiano L. Conoscenza della conoscenza e complessità. La proposta epistemologica di Varela per la scienza cognitiva. Rivista di estetica 2008; 37:67–76.
3. Xu Y, Liu X, Cao X, Huang C, Liu E, Qian S. et al. Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation 2021; 2(4):100179.
4. Varela FJ. Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind. Cambridge- Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1991.
5. Varela F. invitations aux sciences cognitives. Parigi: Edition du Seuil 1988:111.
6. De Loor P, Manac'h K, Tisseau J. Enaction Based Artificial Intelligence: What about Human in the Loop, in Minds and Machines 2009; 19:319–43.
7. Pasasuram R, Wickens CD, Sheridan TB. A model for types and level of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 2000; 30(3):286–97.
8. Biancardo A. Problematiche etico giuridiche relative all’utilizzo dell’intelligenza artificiale in ambito sanitario. Milano: Vita e Pensiero; 2021.
9. Attanasio Aleks, Scaglioni B, De Momi E, Fiorini P, Valdastri P. Autonomy in Surgical Robotics. Annu rev control robot 2021; 4(1):651–79.
10. Li F, Ruijs N, Lu Y. Ethics & AI: A Systematic Review on Ethical Concerns and Related Strategies for Designing with AI in Healthcare. AI 2023; 4(1):28-53.
11. Capri AZ. From Quanta to Quarks. More anecdotal history of physics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. PTE.LTD; 2007:70–86.
12. Heidegger M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York & London: Garland Publishing INC; 1977:4.
13. Scaffardi L. La medicina alla prova dell’Intelligenza. DPCE 2022; 51(1). https://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/1578
14. Patuzzo S, De Stefano F, Ciliberti R. The Italian code of medical deontology. Historical, ethical and legal issues. Acta Biomed 2018; 89(2): 15–64.
15. Mannelli C. Etica e Intelligenza artificiale. Il caso sanitario. Roma: Donzelli Editore; 2022.
16. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019; 25:44–56.
17. Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, Ko J, Swetter SM, Blau HM, Thrun S. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature 2017;542(7639):115–8. Erratum in: Nature 2017;546(7660):686.
18. Jain G, Mittal D, Thakur D, Mittal MK. A deep learning approach to detect Covid-19 coronavirus with X-Ray images. BBE 2020;40(4):1391–405.
19. Cortellessa G, De Benedictis, R, Fracasso F, Orlandini A, Umbrico A, Cesta A. AI and robotics to help older adults: Revisiting projects in search of lessons learned. Paladyn, J 2021; 12(1):356–78.
20. Lee D, Yoon SN. Application of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies in the Healthcare Industry: Opportunities and Challenges. IJERPH 2021;18(1):271.
21. Ahuja AS. The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician. PeerJ 2019; 4;7:e7702.
22. Aminololama-Shakeri S, López JE. The Doctor-Patient Relationship with Artificial Intelligence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212(2):308–10.
23. Ciliberti R, Gulino M, Gorini I. New Italian law about end of life: Self-determination and shared care pathway. [La nuova normativa Italiana sul fine vita: L'autodeterminazione e la condivisione del percorso di cura]. Recenti Prog Med 2018; 109 (5): 267–71.
24. Huisman M, Joye S, Biltereyst D. Searching for Health: Doctor Google and the Shifting Dynamics of the Middle-Aged and Older Adult Patient–Physician Relationship and Interaction. HAH 2020; 32(9), 998–1007.
25. Van Riel N, Auwerx K, Debbaut P, Van Hees S, Schoenmakers B. The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study. BJGP Open 2017;1(2):bjgpopen17X100833.
26. Freckelton R. QC, Internet Disruptions in the Doctor–Patient Relationship. Med L Rev 2020; 28(3):502–25.
27. Risoluzione del Parlamento europeo del 16 febbraio 2017 recante raccomandazioni alla Commissione concernenti norme di diritto civile sulla robotica (2015/2103(INL). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017IP0051&from=DE
28. Teubner G. Soggetti giuridici digitali? Sullo status privatistico degli agenti software autonomi. Edizioni Scientifiche italiane: Napoli; 2019.
29. Smith H. Clinical AI: opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability, in AI&Society 2021; 36:535-545.
30. Comitato Nazionale di Bioetica, Comitato Nazionale per la Biosicurezza le Biotecnologie e le Scienze della Vita. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Intelligenza artificiale e medicina: aspetti etici. 29.05.2020. https://bioetica.governo.it/it/pareri/pareri-gruppo-misto-cnbcnbbsv/intelligenza-artificiale-e-medicina-aspetti-etici/
31. General Data Protection Regulation (OJ L 119, 04.05.2016). https://gdpr-info.eu
32. Arnold M. Teasing out AI in medicine: an ethical critique of AI and machine learning in medicine. J Bioeth Inq 2021;18: 121–39.
33. Pasquale F. New laws of robotics. Defending human expertise in the age of AI. Harvard (MA): Harvad University Press; 2020.
34. Cohen G. Informed Consent and Medical Artificial Intelligence: What to Tell the Patient, in Geo L J 2020; 1426–69.
35. WHO Guidance. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. 28 June 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
36. Unesco. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1. 2022. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137.
37. Ministero della Salute. I sistemi di intelligenza artificiale come supporto alla diagnostica. 2021 https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_3218_allegato.pdf.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 > >>