Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in dermatology: a scoping review.

The field of dermatology is experiencing the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI), from mobile applications (apps) for skin cancer detection to large language models like ChatGPT that can answer generalist or specialist questions about skin diagnoses. With these new applications, ethical concerns have emerged. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify the applications of AI to the field of dermatology and to understand their ethical implications. We used a multifaceted search approach, searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar for primary literature, following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidance. Our advanced query included terms related to dermatology, AI and ethical considerations. Our search yielded 202 papers. After initial screening, 68 studies were included. Thirty-two were related to clinical image analysis and raised ethical concerns for misdiagnosis, data security, privacy violations and replacement of dermatologist jobs. Seventeen discussed limited skin of colour representation in datasets leading to potential misdiagnosis in the general population. Nine articles about teledermatology raised ethical concerns, including the exacerbation of health disparities, lack of standardized regulations, informed consent for AI use and privacy challenges. Seven addressed inaccuracies in the responses of large language models. Seven examined attitudes toward and trust in AI, with most patients requesting supplemental assessment by a physician to ensure reliability and accountability. Benefits of AI integration into clinical practice include increased patient access, improved clinical decision-making, efficiency and many others. However, safeguards must be put in place to ensure the ethical application of AI.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology is rapidly increasing, with applications in dermatopathology, medical dermatology, cutaneous surgery, microscopy/spectroscopy and the identification of prognostic biomarkers (characteristics that provide information on likely patient health outcomes). However, with the rise of AI in dermatology, ethical concerns have emerged. We reviewed the existing literature to identify applications of AI in the field of dermatology and understand the ethical implications. Our search initially identified 202 papers, and after we went through them (screening), 68 were included in our review. We found that ethical concerns are related to the use of AI in the areas of clinical image analysis, teledermatology, natural language processing models, privacy, skin of colour representation, and patient and provider attitudes toward AI. We identified nine ethical principles to facilitate the safe use of AI in dermatology. These ethical principles include fairness, inclusivity, transparency, accountability, security, privacy, reliability, informed consent and conflict of interest. Although there are many benefits of integrating AI into clinical practice, our findings highlight how safeguards must be put in place to reduce rising ethical concerns.

Are Concerns About Irremediableness, Vulnerability, or Competence Sufficient to Justify Excluding All Psychiatric Patients from Medical Aid in Dying?

Some jurisdictions that have decriminalized assisted dying (like Canada) exclude psychiatric patients on the grounds that their condition cannot be determined to be irremediable, that they are vulnerable and in need of protection, or that they cannot be determined to be competent. We review each of these claims and find that none have been sufficiently well-supported to justify the differential treatment psychiatric patients experience with respect to assisted dying. We find bans on psychiatric patients' access to this service amount to arbitrary discrimination. Proponents of banning the practice ignore or overlook alternatives to their proposal, like an assisted dying regime with additional safeguards. Some authors have further criticized assisted dying for psychiatric patients by highlighting allegedly problematic practices in those countries which allow it. We address recent evidence from the Netherlands, showing that these problems are either misrepresented or have straightforward solutions. Even if one finds such evidence troubling despite our analysis, other jurisdictions need not adopt every feature of the Dutch system.

Ebola, team communication, and shame: but shame on whom?

Examined as an isolated situation, and through the lens of a rare and feared disease, Mr. Duncan's case seems ripe for second-guessing the physicians and nurses who cared for him. But viewed from the perspective of what we know about errors and team communication, his case is all too common. Nearly 440,000 patient deaths in the U.S. each year may be attributable to medical errors. Breakdowns in communication among health care teams contribute in the majority of these errors. The culture of health care does not seem to foster functional, effective communication between and among professionals. Why? And more importantly, why do we not do something about it?

Was infectious syphilis being misclassified in remote Australian outbreaks? Evidence that informed modification of the national case definition.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the national case definition to identify infectious syphilis during an outbreak affecting predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a remote Australian region. METHODS: A retrospective case series study of all non-congenital syphilis cases in the region notified between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012 was performed. The national infectious syphilis case definition was compared with an expanded case definition derived from experienced clinician assessment and the definition proposed in the Interim Guidelines for the Public Health Management of Syphilis Outbreaks in Remote Populations in Australia from the Communicable Diseases Network Australia (CDNA). RESULTS: Two hundred and forty syphilis cases were notified, of which 44 (18.3%) were symptomatic. The national case definition classified 106 (44.2%) cases as infectious, compared with 182 (75.8%) using the clinician-derived expanded case definition and 165 (68.8%) by the interim guidelines case definition. Seven confirmed and 6 probable cases were diagnosed as a result of contact tracing of probable infectious cases identified using the expanded case definition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The national case definition for infectious syphilis applied in this remote Australian outbreak underestimated infectious cases when compared with experienced clinicians' evaluation by up to 76 cases (42%) and was inadequate to monitor the magnitude of a syphilis outbreak in such a setting. This may compromise surveillance and resource allocation decisions, and could reduce the capacity to interrupt transmission and contain an outbreak. A revised national case definition, informed by this analysis, was released by CDNA in July 2015.

The ethical imperative to think about thinking - diagnostics, metacognition, and medical professionalism.

While the medical ethics literature has well explored the harm to patients, families, and the integrity of the profession in failing to disclose medical errors once they occur, less often addressed are the moral and professional obligations to take all available steps to prevent errors and harm in the first instance. As an expanding body of scholarship further elucidates the causes of medical error, including the considerable extent to which medical errors, particularly in diagnostics, may be attributable to cognitive sources, insufficient progress in systematically evaluating and implementing suggested strategies for improving critical thinking skills and medical judgment is of mounting concern. Continued failure to address pervasive thinking errors in medical decisionmaking imperils patient safety and professionalism, as well as beneficence and nonmaleficence, fairness and justice. We maintain that self-reflective and metacognitive refinement of critical thinking should not be construed as optional but rather should be considered an integral part of medical education, a codified tenet of professionalism, and by extension, a moral and professional duty.

Radiologic reporting: the ethical obligation of the interpreting physician to provide an accurate report.

OBJECTIVE: This article focuses on the radiology report and examines how related errors can affect patient care even though the radiologist might resist disclosing or discussing reporting errors in a patient-centered way. By using scenarios involving issues in reporting, we hope to show how various ethical theories support the obligation of a radiologist to provide an honest, complete report and to ensure that errors are disclosed to patients. CONCLUSION: Radiologists should be willing to make corrections when necessary and ethical theories and principles are available to guide them in their duty to care for their patients. Physicians owe it to their patients, their patients' families, and the medical profession to produce an honest and truthful report. Despite temptations to deviate from ethically appropriate action, physicians must make honesty to their patients and reporting of errors a priority. Few patients expect absolute perfection from their physicians, but honesty and truthfulness in reporting will advance physician-patient and physician-physician relationships and can foster optimal patient care.

[Ignored homicides]. / Homicides ignorés.

Forensic medicine is a fundamental science for a good evolution of the law and a serious protection of citizens. This science is also inextricably linked to public health. As basic discipline, we consider useful to revisit homicides which escape the investigators'sagacity and especially to know the reasons of this missing. Forensic high quality depends on respect of the crime scene, through specialized training and above all the recognition of this crucial discipline in our contemporary society.

Intersection of biobanking and clinical care: should discrepant diagnoses and pathological findings be returned to research participants?

Diagnostic discrepancies occur when the diagnosis made on a biospecimen during the course of review at a biobank differs from the original clinical diagnosis. These diagnostic discrepancies detected during biobanking present unique challenges that are distinct from other types of research results or incidental findings. The proposed process for reporting diagnostic discrepancies or pathological incidental findings identified through a quality assurance evaluation at the biobank includes verification of the biospecimen identity, verification of the diagnosis within the biobank, and re-review of the case by the pathologist at the biospecimen collection site. If the pathologist at the biobank and the original pathologist do not reach agreement, an impartial and knowledgeable third party is consulted. The decision as to whether and how to notify research participants of any confirmed changes in diagnosis would be determined by institutional procedures. Implementation of this proposed process will require clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties in order to promote excellence in patient care and ensure that researchers have access to biospecimens of requisite quality.Genet Med 2012:14(4):417-423.

Psychosis: what it is and what it is not. Psychiatric diagnosis an an ethical problem.

The different causes of misdiagnosis in psychiatry are reviewed, and the ethical implications of such misdiagnoses are discussed.

Missed diagnosis of cancer in primary care: Insights from malpractice claims data.

BACKGROUND: In the ambulatory setting, missed cancer diagnoses are leading contributors to patient harm and malpractice risk; however, there are limited data on the malpractice case characteristics for these cases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine key features and factors identified in missed cancer diagnosis malpractice claims filed related to primary care and evaluate predictors of clinical and claim outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 2155 diagnostic error closed malpractice claims in outpatient general medicine. We created multivariate models to determine factors that predicted case outcomes. RESULTS: Missed cancer diagnoses represented 980 (46%) cases of primary care diagnostic errors, most commonly from lung, colorectal, prostate, or breast cancer. The majority (76%) involved errors in clinical judgment, such as a failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test (51%) or failure or delay in obtaining a consult or referral (37%). These factors were independently associated with higher-severity patient harm. The majority of these errors were of high severity (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims involving missed diagnoses of cancer in primary care most often involve routine screening examinations or delays in testing or referral. Our findings suggest that more reliable closed-loop systems for diagnostic testing and referrals are crucial for preventing diagnostic errors in the ambulatory setting.

When No One Notices: Disorders of Consciousness and the Chronic Vegetative State.

On January 5, 2019, the Associated Press reported that a woman thought to have been in the vegetative state for over a decade gave birth at a Hacienda HealthCare facility. Until she delivered, the staff at the Phoenix center had not noticed that their patient was pregnant. The patient was also misdiagnosed. Misdiagnosis of patients with disorders of consciousness in institutional settings is more the norm than the exception. Misdiagnosis is also connected to a broad and extremely significant change in the understanding of the vegetative state-a change that the field of bioethics has not yet fully taken into account. In September 2018, the American Academy of Neurology, the American College of Rehabilitation Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research issued a comprehensive evidence-based review on disorders of consciousness and an associated practice guideline on the care of these patients. These landmark publications update the 1994 Multi-Society Task Force Report on the Vegetative State, which subcategorized the persistent vegetative state as either persistent (once the vegetative state lasted one month) or permanent (once the vegetative state lasted three months after anoxic injury or twelve months after traumatic injury). Noting that 20 percent of patients thought to be permanently unconscious might regain some level of consciousness, the new guideline has eliminated the permanent vegetative state as a diagnostic category, replacing it with the chronic vegetative state.