Search

The article focuses on the debate surrounding the classification of medical adaptive machine learning systems (MAMLS) as research tools versus clinical tools. It arguing against the stringent regulatory burdens proposed by Sparrow and colleagues; the ethical implications of generalizable data in healthcare; the role of continuous learning in improving patient care and the need for a balanced approach to regulatory oversight that prioritizes safety and efficacy over overly cautious restrictions.

The article presents the discussion on personhood has long figured prominently in discussions of entities' moral status and attendant rights. Topics include personhood, however, might invite difficulties because of the word ‘person,' which has particular emotional resonance and is associated with ‘human being'; and moral standing that an entity can achieve, at which point an entity's interests, rights, and duties.

The author comments on the article "Epistemic rights and responsibilities of digital simulacra for biomedicine" by Professors Mildred Cho and Nicole Martinez-Martin which analyzes how, as medicine deploys digital twins data, data science approaches to problems and cases might supplant medical approaches. Topics discussed include how the use of digital twins for health care in adversarial medical-legal proceedings could influence clinical behavior and the use of digital twins across industries.

The article examines on the government-mandated licensing terms arrangement for fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND). An overview on the potential approach for patented technology to manage serious unmet or urgent medical need, is provided. Prevention on the delay in the development of sequential innovations, is also mentioned.