Possibilities and ethical issues of entrusting nursing tasks to robots and artificial intelligence.

In recent years, research in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) has made rapid progress. It is expected that robots and AI will play a part in the field of nursing and their role might broaden in the future. However, there are areas of nursing practice that cannot or should not be entrusted to robots and AI, because nursing is a highly humane practice, and therefore, there would, perhaps, be some practices that should not be replicated by robots or AI. Therefore, this paper focuses on several ethical concepts (advocacy, accountability, cooperation, and caring) that are considered important in nursing practice, and examines whether it is possible to implement these ethical concepts in robots and AI by analyzing the concepts and the current state of robotics and AI technology. Advocacy: Among the components of advocacy, safeguarding and apprising can be more easily implemented, while elements that require emotional communication with patients, such as valuing and mediating, are difficult to implement. Accountability: Robotic nurses with explainable AI have a certain level of accountability. However, the concept of explanation has problems of infinite regression and attribution of responsibility. Cooperation: If robot nurses are recognized as members of a community, they require the same cooperation as human nurses. Caring: More difficulties are expected in care-receiving than in caregiving. However, the concept of caring itself is ambiguous and should be explored further. Accordingly, our analysis suggests that, although some difficulties can be expected in each of these concepts, it cannot be said that it is impossible to implement them in robots and AI. However, even if it were possible to implement these functions in the future, further study is needed to determine whether such robots or AI should be used for nursing care. In such discussions, it will be necessary to involve not only ethicists and nurses but also an array of society members.

A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.

BACKGROUND: Whether and how to disclose genomic findings obtained in the course of genomic clinical practice and medical research has been a controversial global bioethical issue over the past two decades. Although several recommendations and judgment tools for the disclosure of genomic findings have been proposed, none are sufficiently systematic or inclusive or even consistent with each other. In order to approach the disclosure/non-disclosure practice in an ethical manner, optimal and easy-to-use tools for supporting the judgment of physicians/researchers in genomic medicine are necessary. METHODS: The bioethics literature on this topic was analyzed to parse and deconstruct the somewhat overlapping and therefore ill-defined key concepts of genomic findings, such as incidental, primary, secondary, and other findings. Based on the deconstruction and conceptual analyses of these findings, we then defined key parameters from which to identify the strength of duty to disclose (SDD) for a genomic finding. These analyses were then applied to develop a framework with the SDD matrix and systematic decision-making pathways for the disclosure of genomic findings. RESULTS: The following six major parameters (axes), along with sub-axes, were identified: Axis 1 (settings and institutions where findings emerge); Axis 2 (presence or absence of intention and anticipatability in discovery); Axis 3 (maximal actionability at the time of discovery); Axis 4 (net medical importance); Axis 5 (expertise of treating physician/researcher); and Axis 6 (preferences of individual patients/research subjects for disclosure). For Axes 1 to 4, a colored SDD matrix for genomic findings was developed in which levels of obligation for disclosing a finding can be categorized. For Axes 5 and 6, systematic decision-making pathways were developed via the SDD matrix. CONCLUSION: We analyzed the SDD of genomic findings and developed subsequent systematic decision-making pathways of whether and how to disclose genomic findings to patients/research subjects and their relatives in an ethical manner. Our comprehensive framework may help physicians and researchers in genomic medicine make consistent ethical judgments regarding the disclosure of genomic findings.

Principles of ethical consideration required for clinical research involving children.

Ethical considerations are more stringent in pediatric clinical research than in research targeting adults. However, in Japan, clear guidelines have yet to be presented on the necessary ethical considerations for clinical research involving children. The "Principles of Ethical Consideration Required for Clinical Research Involving Children" provide guiding principles for ethical considerations and the essential ways of thinking that all involved in clinical research on children need to understand in advance.

Differences in Conceptual Understanding of the "Actionability" of Incidental Findings and the Resultant Difference in Ethical Responsibility: An Empirical Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The issue of incidental findings encountered in medical researches and in clinical practices becomes controversial in recent years. In what situations should researchers and clinicians disclose incidental findings to study participants or patients? According to previous studies, the concept of "actionability" is one of most important notions in determining the management of incidental findings, however, the understanding of this concept is also inconsistent among people and the inconsistency can affect the management of incidental findings. That is why we surveyed the difference in conceptual understanding of "actionability" for incidental findings with genomic researches in Japan. Methods: We conducted focus groups with individuals conducting genomics research or genetic testing at the National Centers in Japan, all of which are expected to contribute significantly to genomics research and subsequent clinical practice in Japan. Results: As far as our survey and analysis, there exists crucial discrepancy; one might consider that an "actionable" finding should be one that would be useful in treatment or prevention; another might consider if the finding could lead to a definitive diagnosis, it should be considered "actionable," regardless of the treatment potential of the disease; moreover another might considered that a finding that would lead to the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial was "actionable". Conclusion: Based on the present study which we conducted, we have examined thus far the concept of "actionability", which may influence the management of incidental findings. The present study revealed discrepancies in the understanding of this concept among the National Centers in Japan, which all bear similar expectations from society. And this difference in "actionability" would lead to variations in management of incidental findings.