Algor-ethics: charting the ethical path for AI in critical care.

The integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is groundbreaking evolution with enormous potential, but its development and ethical implementation, presents unique challenges, particularly in critical care, where physicians often deal with life-threating conditions requiring rapid actions and patients unable to participate in the decisional process. Moreover, development of AI-based CDSS is complex and should address different sources of bias, including data acquisition, health disparities, domain shifts during clinical use, and cognitive biases in decision-making. In this scenario algor-ethics is mandatory and emphasizes the integration of 'Human-in-the-Loop' and 'Algorithmic Stewardship' principles, and the benefits of advanced data engineering. The establishment of Clinical AI Departments (CAID) is necessary to lead AI innovation in healthcare, ensuring ethical integrity and human-centered development in this rapidly evolving field.

Intelligent, Autonomous Machines in Surgery.

Surgeons perform two primary tasks: operating and engaging patients and caregivers in shared decision-making. Human dexterity and decision-making are biologically limited. Intelligent, autonomous machines have the potential to augment or replace surgeons. Rather than regarding this possibility with denial, ire, or indifference, surgeons should understand and steer these technologies. Closer examination of surgical innovations and lessons learned from the automotive industry can inform this process. Innovations in minimally invasive surgery and surgical decision-making follow classic S-shaped curves with three phases: (1) introduction of a new technology, (2) achievement of a performance advantage relative to existing standards, and (3) arrival at a performance plateau, followed by replacement with an innovation featuring greater machine autonomy and less human influence. There is currently no level I evidence demonstrating improved patient outcomes using intelligent, autonomous machines for performing operations or surgical decision-making tasks. History suggests that if such evidence emerges and if the machines are cost effective, then they will augment or replace humans, initially for simple, common, rote tasks under close human supervision and later for complex tasks with minimal human supervision. This process poses ethical challenges in assigning liability for errors, matching decisions to patient values, and displacing human workers, but may allow surgeons to spend less time gathering and analyzing data and more time interacting with patients and tending to urgent, critical-and potentially more valuable-aspects of patient care. Surgeons should steer these technologies toward optimal patient care and net social benefit using the uniquely human traits of creativity, altruism, and moral deliberation.

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 2: Exploring the ethical implications of its application in primary care practice.

Background: eHealth promises to increase self-management and personalised medicine and improve cost-effectiveness in primary care. Paired with these promises are ethical implications, as eHealth will affect patients' and primary care professionals' (PCPs) experiences, values, norms, and relationships.Objectives: We argue what ethical implications related to the impact of eHealth on four vital aspects of primary care could (and should) be anticipated.Discussion: (1) EHealth influences dealing with predictive and diagnostic uncertainty. Machine-learning based clinical decision support systems offer (seemingly) objective, quantified, and personalised outcomes. However, they also introduce new loci of uncertainty and subjectivity. The decision-making process becomes opaque, and algorithms can be invalid, biased, or even discriminatory. This has implications for professional responsibilities and judgments, justice, autonomy, and trust. (2) EHealth affects the roles and responsibilities of patients because it can stimulate self-management and autonomy. However, autonomy can also be compromised, e.g. in cases of persuasive technologies and eHealth can increase existing health disparities. (3) The delegation of tasks to a network of technologies and stakeholders requires attention for responsibility gaps and new responsibilities. (4) The triangulate relationship: patient-eHealth-PCP requires a reconsideration of the role of human interaction and 'humanness' in primary care as well as of shaping Shared Decision Making.Conclusion: Our analysis is an essential first step towards setting up a dedicated ethics research agenda that should be examined in parallel to the development and implementation of eHealth. The ultimate goal is to inspire the development of practice-specific ethical recommendations.

Legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of crowdsourcing among healthcare providers.

As the pace of medical discovery widens the knowledge-to-practice gap, technologies that enable peer-to-peer crowdsourcing have become increasingly common. Crowdsourcing has the potential to help medical providers collaborate to solve patient-specific problems in real time. We recently conducted the first trial of a mobile, medical crowdsourcing application among healthcare providers in a university hospital setting. In addition to acknowledging the benefits, our participants also raised concerns regarding the potential negative consequences of this emerging technology. In this commentary, we consider the legal and ethical implications of the major findings identified in our previous trial including compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, patient protections, healthcare provider liability, data collection, data retention, distracted doctoring, and multi-directional anonymous posting. We believe the commentary and recommendations raised here will provide a frame of reference for individual providers, provider groups, and institutions to explore the salient legal and ethical issues before they implement these systems into their workflow.

Conflict of interest in online point-of-care clinical support websites.

Point-of-care evidence-based medicine websites allow physicians to answer clinical queries using recent evidence at the bedside. Despite significant research into the function, usability and effectiveness of these programmes, little attention has been paid to their ethical issues. As many of these sites summarise the literature and provide recommendations, we sought to assess the role of conflicts of interest in two widely used websites: UpToDate and Dynamed. We recorded all conflicts of interest for six articles detailing treatment for the following conditions: erectile dysfunction, fibromyalgia, hypogonadism, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. These diseases were chosen as their medical management is either controversial, or they are treated using biological drugs which are mostly available by brand name only. Thus, we hypothesised that the role of conflict of interest would be more significant in these conditions than in an illness treated with generic medications or by strict guidelines. All articles from the UpToDate articles demonstrated a conflict of interest. At times, the editor and author would have a financial relationship with a company whose drug was mentioned within the article. This is in contrast with articles on the Dynamed website, in which no author or editor had a documented conflict. We offer recommendations regarding the role of conflict of interest disclosure in these point-of-care evidence-based medicine websites.

How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations.

While every health care system stakeholder would seem to be concerned with obtaining the greatest value from a given technology, there is often a disconnect in the perception of value between a technology's promoters and those responsible for the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay for it. Adopting an empirical ethics approach, this paper examines how five Canadian medical device manufacturers, via their websites, frame the corporate "value proposition" of their innovation and seek to respond to what they consider the key expectations of their customers. Our analysis shows that the manufacturers' framing strategies combine claims that relate to valuable socio-technical goals and features such as prevention, efficiency, sense of security, real-time feedback, ease of use and flexibility, all elements that likely resonate with a large spectrum of health care system stakeholders. The websites do not describe, however, how the innovations may impact health care delivery and tend to obfuscate the decisional trade-offs these innovations represent from a health care system perspective. Such framing strategies, we argue, tend to bolster physicians' and patients' expectations and provide a large set of stakeholders with powerful rhetorical tools that may influence the health policy arena. Because these strategies are difficult to counter given the paucity of evidence and its limited use in policymaking, establishing sound collective health care priorities will require solid critiques of how certain kinds of medical devices may provide a better (i.e., more valuable) response to health care needs when compared to others.

Need for ethics support in healthcare institutions: views of Dutch board members and ethics support staff.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to investigate the need for ethics support in Dutch healthcare institutions in order to understand why ethics support is often not used in practice and which factors are relevant in this context. METHODS: This study had a mixed methods design integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods. Two survey questionnaires, two focus groups and 17 interviews were conducted among board members and ethics support staff in Dutch healthcare institutions. FINDINGS: Most respondents see a need for ethics support. This need is related to the complexity of contemporary healthcare, the contribution of ethics support to the core business of the organisation and to the surplus value of paying structural attention to ethical issues. The need for ethics support is, however, not unconditional. Reasons for a lacking need include: aversion of innovations, negative associations with the notion of ethics support service, and organisational factors like resources and setting. CONCLUSION: There is a conditioned need for ethics support in Dutch healthcare institutions. The promotion of ethics support in healthcare can be fostered by focusing on formats which fit the needs of (practitioners in) healthcare institutions. The emphasis should be on creating a (culture of) dialogue about the complex situations which emerge daily in contemporary healthcare practice.

The politics of end-of-life decision-making: computerised decision-support tools, physicians' jurisdiction and morality.

With the increasing corporate and governmental rationalisation of medical care, the mandate of efficiency has caused many to fear that concern for the individual patient will be replaced with impersonal, rule-governed allocation of medical resources. Largely ignored is the role of moral principles in medical decision-making. This analysis comes from an ethnographic study conducted from 1999-2001 in three US Intensive Care Units, two of which were using the computerised decision-support tool, APACHE III (Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation III), which notably predicts the probability that a patient will die. It was found that the use of APACHE presents a paradox regarding concern for the individual patient. To maintain jurisdiction over the care of patients, physicians share the data with the payers and regulators of care to prove they are using resources effectively and efficiently, yet they use the system in conjunction with moral principles to justify treating each patient as unique. Thus, concern for the individual patient is not lessened with the use of this system. However, physicians do not share the data with patients or surrogate decision-makers because they fear they will be viewed as more interested in profits than patients.

[The impact of ethical and moral competence in decision making on rationalism and rationing nursing interventions]. / Die Bedeutung ethischer und moralischer Kompetenz in Rationalisierungs- und Rationierungsentscheidungen über pflegerische Interventionen.

The intraprofessional discourse about economical aspects in nursing from an ethical point of view has not taken place yet. To cope with the increasing restriction of resources, some preconditions have to be met: It is necessary to communicate issues in rationalizing and rationing in nursing openly. Person-oriented criteria in the nursing process indicate a high level of competence and user-oriented quality in nursing care. But nursing professionals do not decide in favor or against resources to perform this task on a high or poor quality level. Democratic decision-making on providing nursing services depends on a continuous societal discourse about allocation criteria.

Ethical and legal issues in the use of clinical decision support systems.

The clinician must be able to make informed decisions on when to seek out, follow, or ignore the clinical decision support system's advice. In addition, knowledge bases must be properly maintained, and vendors should inform the client about how the systems were developed and tested, the source of the rules in the system, expectations of the user, and type of user training required.