Practical wisdom in medicine through the eyes of medical students and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Practical wisdom is considered a multidimensional virtue of enduring relevance to medicine. Though it has received increasing attention in recent years, proposed frameworks for practical wisdom can differ, and little is known about how medical students and physicians describe its dimensions and relevance. METHODS: We used structured interviews, employing open-ended and closed-ended questions, to describe how medical students and physicians understand practical wisdom and identify the kinds of clinical situations they believe require practical wisdom. We interviewed 102 participants at two US medical schools in 2021, comprising a voluntary response sample of 40 pre-clinical medical students and 40 clinical medical students and a purposive sample of 22 nominated physicians. Interviews were conducted by videoconference using a structured interview guide. Open-ended responses were coded using qualitative content analysis (directed and conventional) and tabulated; closed-ended responses were tabulated. Quotations provided qualitative illustrations, and frequencies were used for summative results. RESULTS: Participants considered practical wisdom clinically meaningful, broadly relevant and multidimensional. Most described it as deliberative, goal-directed, context-sensitive, integrated with ethics and marked by integrity and motivation to act. Many described it as experience-based, person-centred or problem-solving. Participants also selected an average of 15.6 (SD = 4.9) additional virtues as being essential for practical wisdom in medicine and described a broad range of clinical situations that require practical wisdom in medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described practical wisdom as a multidimensional capacity that entails deliberation, depends on a constellation of other virtues and is broadly applicable to medicine. Most agreed it is goal-directed and context-sensitive and involves ethics, integrity and motivation. Efforts to teach practical wisdom in medical education should clarify its dimensions and highlight its relationship to virtue ethics, professionalism, clinical judgement and the individualised care of patients as persons.

Promoting Equity in Health Care through Human Flourishing, Justice, and Solidarity.

In this article, we develop a non-rights-based argument based on beneficence (i.e., the welfare of individuals and communities) and justice as the disposition to act justly to promote equity in health care resource allocation. To this end, we structured our analysis according to the following main sections. The first section examines the work of Amartya Sen and his equality of capabilities approach and outlines a framework of health care as a fundamental human need. In the subsequent section, we provide a definition of health equity based on the moral imperative to guarantee that every individual ought to have the freedom to pursue health goals and well-being. In the later part of the article, we outline a non-right approach to health care based on three pillars: (1) human flourishing, (2) justice as a disposition not a process, and (3) solidarity.

Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of 'Neurorights'.

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty - often framed as "neurorights" in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.

Doctor Ex Machina: A Critical Assessment of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.

This article examines the potential implications of the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care for both its delivery and the medical profession. To this end, the first section explores the basic features of AI and the yet theoretical concept of autonomous AI followed by an overview of current and developing AI applications. Against this background, the second section discusses the transforming roles of physicians and changes in the patient-physician relationship that could be a consequence of gradual expansion of AI in health care. Subsequently, an examination of the responsibilities physicians should assume in this process is explored. The third section describes conceivable practical and ethical challenges that implementation of a single all-encompassing AI healthcare system would pose. The fourth section presents arguments for regulation of AI in health care to ensure that these applications do not violate basic ethical principles and that human control of AI will be preserved in the future. In the final section, fundamental components of a moral framework from which such regulation may be derived are brought forward, and some possible strategies for building a moral framework are discussed.

Digital Technologies for Schizophrenia Management: A Descriptive Review.

While the implementation of digital technology in psychiatry appears promising, there is an urgent need to address the implications of the absence of ethical design in the early development of such technologies. Some authors have noted the gap between technology development and ethical analysis and have called for an upstream examination of the ethical issues raised by digital technologies. In this paper, we address this suggestion, particularly in relation to digital healthcare technologies for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The introduction of digital technologies in psychiatry offers a broad spectrum of diagnostic and treatment options tailored to the health needs and goals of patients' care. These technologies include wearable devices, smartphone applications for high-immersive virtual realities, smart homes, telepsychiatry and messaging systems for patients in rural areas. The availability of these technologies could increase access to mental health services and improve the diagnostics of mental disorders. In this descriptive review, we systematize ethical concerns about digital technologies for mental health with a particular focus on individuals suffering from schizophrenia. There are many unsolved dilemmas and conflicts of interest in the implementation of these technologies, such as (1) the lack of evidence on efficacy and impact on self-perception; (2) the lack of clear standards for the safety of their daily implementation; (3) unclear roles of technology and a shift in the responsibilities of all parties; (4) no guarantee of data confidentiality; and (5) the lack of a user-centered design that meets the particular needs of patients with schizophrenia. mHealth can improve care in psychiatry and make mental healthcare services more efficient and personalized while destigmatizing mental health disorders. To ensure that these technologies will benefit people with mental health disorders, we need to heighten sensitivity to ethical issues among mental healthcare specialists, health policy makers, software developers, patients themselves and their proxies. Additionally, we need to develop frameworks for furthering sustainable development in the digital technologies industry and for the responsible usage of such technologies for patients with schizophrenia in the clinical setting. We suggest that digital technology in psychiatry, particularly for schizophrenia and other serious mental health disorders, should be integrated into treatment with professional supervision rather than as a self-treatment tool.

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Sword of Damocles?

Will Artificial Intelligence (AI) re-humanize or de-humanize medicine? As AI becomes pervasive in clinical medicine, we argue that the ethical framework that sustains a responsible implementation of such technologies should be reconsidered. The emergence of AI in the clinical setting will challenge our traditional moral boundaries surrounding discussions of patient care since it is unclear how the implementation of AI will promote and enhance the humanistic dimensions of medical practice. There are reasons for concern regarding 1) the anthropological implications of AI in the clinical context; 2) the method(s) and framework(s) used to address ethical issues in medicine; and 3) the impact of AI on clinical practice, particularly in the nature of clinical judgment. These three concerns are examined in hopes of providing pointers for subsequent and more in-depth discussions regarding clinical practice but the training of future health professionals.

Keeping the "Human in the Loop" in the Age of Artificial Intelligence : Accompanying Commentary for "Correcting the Brain?" by Rainey and Erden.

The benefits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine are unquestionable and it is unlikely that the pace of its development will slow down. From better diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention to more precise surgical procedures, AI has the potential to offer unique opportunities to enhance patient care and improve clinical practice overall. However, at this stage of AI technology development it is unclear whether it will de-humanize or re-humanize medicine. Will AI allow clinicians to spend less time on administrative tasks and technology related procedures and more time being present in person to attend to the needs of their patients? Or will AI dramatically increase the presence of smart technology in the clinical context to a point of undermining the humane dimension of the patient-physician relationship? In this brief commentary, we argue that technological solutions should be only integrated into clinical medicine if they fulfill the following three conditions: (1) they serve human ends; (2) they respect personal identity; and (3) they promote human interaction. These three conditions form the moral imperative of humanity.

Artificial intelligence, physiological genomics, and precision medicine.

Big data are a major driver in the development of precision medicine. Efficient analysis methods are needed to transform big data into clinically-actionable knowledge. To accomplish this, many researchers are turning toward machine learning (ML), an approach of artificial intelligence (AI) that utilizes modern algorithms to give computers the ability to learn. Much of the effort to advance ML for precision medicine has been focused on the development and implementation of algorithms and the generation of ever larger quantities of genomic sequence data and electronic health records. However, relevance and accuracy of the data are as important as quantity of data in the advancement of ML for precision medicine. For common diseases, physiological genomic readouts in disease-applicable tissues may be an effective surrogate to measure the effect of genetic and environmental factors and their interactions that underlie disease development and progression. Disease-applicable tissue may be difficult to obtain, but there are important exceptions such as kidney needle biopsy specimens. As AI continues to advance, new analytical approaches, including those that go beyond data correlation, need to be developed and ethical issues of AI need to be addressed. Physiological genomic readouts in disease-relevant tissues, combined with advanced AI, can be a powerful approach for precision medicine for common diseases.

Ethical Design of Intelligent Assistive Technologies for Dementia: A Descriptive Review.

The use of Intelligent Assistive Technology (IAT) in dementia care opens the prospects of reducing the global burden of dementia and enabling novel opportunities to improve the lives of dementia patients. However, with current adoption rates being reportedly low, the potential of IATs might remain under-expressed as long as the reasons for suboptimal adoption remain unaddressed. Among these, ethical and social considerations are critical. This article reviews the spectrum of IATs for dementia and investigates the prevalence of ethical considerations in the design of current IATs. Our screening shows that a significant portion of current IATs is designed in the absence of explicit ethical considerations. These results suggest that the lack of ethical consideration might be a codeterminant of current structural limitations in the translation of IATs from designing labs to bedside. Based on these data, we call for a coordinated effort to proactively incorporate ethical considerations early in the design and development of new products.

Can Neuroscience Contribute to Practical Ethics? A Critical Review and Discussion of the Methodological and Translational Challenges of the Neuroscience of Ethics.

Neuroethics is an interdisciplinary field that arose in response to novel ethical challenges posed by advances in neuroscience. Historically, neuroethics has provided an opportunity to synergize different disciplines, notably proposing a two-way dialogue between an 'ethics of neuroscience' and a 'neuroscience of ethics'. However, questions surface as to whether a 'neuroscience of ethics' is a useful and unified branch of research and whether it can actually inform or lead to theoretical insights and transferable practical knowledge to help resolve ethical questions. In this article, we examine why the neuroscience of ethics is a promising area of research and summarize what we have learned so far regarding its most promising goals and contributions. We then review some of the key methodological challenges which may have hindered the use of results generated thus far by the neuroscience of ethics. Strategies are suggested to address these challenges and improve the quality of research and increase neuroscience's usefulness for applied ethics and society at large. Finally, we reflect on potential outcomes of a neuroscience of ethics and discuss the different strategies that could be used to support knowledge transfer to help different stakeholders integrate knowledge from the neuroscience of ethics.

Proactive Ethical Design for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies: the Cybathlon Lesson.

BACKGROUND: Rapid advancements in rehabilitation science and the widespread application of engineering techniques are opening the prospect of a new phase of clinical and commercial maturity for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies (NARTs). As the field enters this new phase, there is an urgent need to address and anticipate the ethical implications associated with novel technological opportunities, clinical solutions, and social applications. MAIN IDEA: In this paper we review possible approaches to the ethics of NART, and propose a framework for ethical design and development, which we call the Proactive Ethical Design (PED) framework. CONCLUSION: A viable ethical framework for neuroengineering, assistive and rehabilitation technology should be characterized by the convergence of user-centered and value-sensitive approaches to product design through a proactive mode of ethical evaluation. We propose four basic normative requirements for the realization of this framework: minimization of power imbalances, compliance with biomedical ethics, translationality and social awareness. The aims and values of the CYBATHLON competition provide an operative model of this ethical framework and could drive an ethical shift in neuroengineering and rehabilitation.

Patient education as empowerment and self-rebiasing.

The fiduciary nature of the patient-physician relationship requires clinicians to act in the best interest of their patients. Patients are vulnerable due to their health status and lack of medical knowledge, which makes them dependent on the clinicians' expertise. Competent patients, however, may reject the recommendations of their physician, either refusing beneficial medical interventions or procedures based on their personal views that do not match the perceived medical indication. In some instances, the patients' refusal may jeopardize their health or life but also compromise the clinician's moral responsibility to promote the patient's best interests. In other words, health professionals have to deal with patients whose behavior and healthcare decisions seem counterproductive for their health, or even deteriorate it, because of lack of knowledge, bad habits or bias without being the patients' free voluntary choice. The moral dilemma centers on issues surrounding the limits of the patient's autonomy (rights) and the clinician's role to promote the well-being of the patient (duties). In this paper we argue that (1) the use of manipulative strategies, albeit considered beneficent, defeats the purpose of patient education and therefore should be rejected; and (2) the appropriate strategy is to empower patients through patient education which enhances their autonomy and encourages them to become full healthcare partners as opposed to objects of clinical intervention or entities whose values or attitudes need to be shaped and changed through education. First, we provide a working definition of the concept of patient education and a brief historical overview of its origin. Second, we examine the nature of the patient-physician relationship in order to delineate its boundaries, essential for understanding the role of education in the clinical context. Third, we argue that patient education should promote self-rebiasing, enhance autonomy, and empower patients to determine their therapeutic goals. Finally, we develop a moral framework for patient education.

The principle of equivalence reconsidered: assessing the relevance of the principle of equivalence in prison medicine.

In this article we critically examine the principle of equivalence of care in prison medicine. First, we provide an overview of how the principle of equivalence is utilized in various national and international guidelines on health care provision to prisoners. Second, we outline some of the problems associated with its applications, and argue that the principle of equivalence should go beyond equivalence to access and include equivalence of outcomes. However, because of the particular context of the prison environment, third, we contend that the concept of "health" in equivalence of health outcomes needs conceptual clarity; otherwise, it fails to provide a threshold for healthy states among inmates. We accomplish this by examining common understandings of the concepts of health and disease. We conclude our article by showing why the conceptualization of diseases as clinical problems provides a helpful approach in the delivery of health care in prison.

Independent donor ethical assessment: aiming to standardize donor advocacy.

Living organ donation has become more common across the world. To ensure an informed consent process, given the complex issues involved with organ donation, independent donor advocacy is required. The choice of how donor advocacy is administered is left up to each transplant center. This article presents the experience and process of donor advocacy at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center administered by a multidisciplinary team consisting of physicians, surgeons, psychologists, medical ethicists and anthropologists, lawyers, a chaplain, a living kidney donor, and a kidney transplant recipient. To ensure that advocacy remains fair and consistent for all donors being considered, the donor advocacy team at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center developed the Independent Donor Ethical Assessment, a tool that may be useful to others in rendering donor advocacy. In addition, the tool may be modified as circumstances arise to improve donor advocacy and maintain uniformity in decision making.

Remote Technologies and Filial Obligations at a Distance: New Opportunities and Ethical Challenges.

The coupled growth of population aging and international migration warrants attention on the methods and solutions available to adult children living overseas to provide distance caregiving for their aging parents. Despite living apart from their parents, the transnational informal care literature has indicated that first-generation immigrants remain committed to carry out their filial caregiving obligations in extensive and creative ways. With functions to remotely access health information enabled by emergency, wearable, motion, and video sensors, remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) may thus also allow these international migrants to be alerted in sudden changes and remain informed of their parent's state of health. As technological solutions for caregiving, RMTs could allow independent living for older persons while any unusual deviations from normal health patterns are detected and appropriately supported. With a vignette of a distance care arrangement, we engage with concepts such as filial piety, in-absentia caregiving distress, and the social exchange theory, as well as the upholding of shifting cultural ideals to illustrate the complex dynamic of the satisfaction and quality of the informal caregiving relationship. This paper extends the traditional ethical issues in technology-aided caregiving, such as autonomy, privacy, and justice, to be considered within the context of distance care. We also posit newer ethical considerations such as consent in power imbalances, harm to caregivers, and stigma. These known and new ethical issues aim to encourage further ethically conscious design and use of RMTs to support distance care for older persons.

eHealth interventions for psychiatry in Switzerland and Russia: a comparative study.

Introduction: During the past decade, the use of digital technology to promote mental health has increased dramatically. Additionally, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as travel restrictions and the disruption of face-to-face interactions, have led to an increase in the use of digital technologies. A wide variety of technologies have been developed, including messaging chatbots, virtual reality technologies, direct-to-consumer apps, and even technologies that are fully integrated into clinical care tools. Methods: The following qualitative study is based on the opinions of mental health specialists in both countries regarding the use of digital health technologies in psychiatry in Switzerland and Russia in 2019-2020. We investigate the state of adoption of digital technologies in the field of mental health, the meaning of such technologies, and the crucial factors in the use of such technologies in psychiatry. Results: Health care professionals in both Russia and Switzerland are well aware of these technologies. However, the use of digital technology to promote mental health has taken different paths in these two health care settings.

"What's the best way to document information concerning psychiatric patients? I just don't know"-A qualitative study about recording psychiatric patients notes in the era of electronic health records.

This paper reports the results of a qualitative study regarding the main attitudes and concerns of Swiss psychiatrists related to the utility, usability and acceptability of EHR and how they address the pitfalls of sharing sensitive information with other parties. A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were carried out. Applied thematic analysis was used to identify themes with regard to participation. Three main themes were identified: 1) strengths of the use of EHR in the clinical context; 2) limitations of EHR; and 3) recommendations on preserving confidentiality in health records. The study shows variable practices of EHR use in psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland and a lack of standards on how to document sensitive information in EHR.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation and personal identity: ethical questions, and neuroethical approaches for medical practice.

Neurotechnology provides means to engage micro- and macrostructural networks of the brain to both mitigate the manifestations of several neurological and psychiatric disorders, and alter cognition and motoric activity. Such capacity also generates questions of how these interventions may affect personal identity. This paper discusses the ethical implications regarding changes to personal identity that arise from the therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) technologies. In addition, we raise the question of whether changes in personal identity, as a side effect of these interventions, are ethically acceptable and whether such alterations of personality foster patients' sense of well-being and autonomy. First, we provide a series of case vignettes that afford an overview of the ways that various neurological interventions can affect personal identity. Second, we offer a brief working definition of personal identity in order to delineate an ethical framework that we deem necessary for the responsible use of neurostimulation technologies. In so doing, we argue that neurostimulation therapy, as a doctoring act, should be directed, and adherent to goals of restoring and/or preserving patients' personal identity. To this end, we offer an ethical framework that we believe enables sound decisions about the right and good use of TMS and DBS.

The rights (and responsibilities) of the public to advance health through research.

In this commentary we assert that the rights and responsibilities of the community at large as an important key stakeholder in the effort of advancing health through research and discovery have not been carefully examined and delineated. The time has come to investigate the nature of the rights and responsibilities of the public in advancing health through research and discovery. We argue that the public has the right not merely to participate in research and have their rights protected, but that they have a right to engage in and take ownership in research.

Human dignity and transhumanism: do anthro-technological devices have moral status?

In this paper, I focus on the concept of human dignity and critically assess whether such a concept, as used in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, is indeed a useful tool for bioethical debates. However, I consider this concept within the context of the development of emerging technologies, that is, with a particular focus on transhumanism. The question I address is not whether attaching artificial limbs or enhancing particular traits or capacities would dehumanize or undignify persons but whether nonbiological entities introduced into or attached to the human body contribute to the "augmentation" of human dignity. First, I outline briefly how the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights uses the concept of dignity. Second, I look at the possibility of a universal bioethics in relation to the concept of human dignity. Third, I examine the concept of posthuman dignity and whether the concept of human dignity as construed in the declaration has any relevance to posthuman dignity.