Search

This paper is the English translation and adaptation of my inaugural lecture in Amsterdam for the Chair Anthropology of Everyday Ethics in Health Care. I argue that the challenges in health care may look daunting and unsolvable in their scale and complexity, but that it helps to consider these problems in their specificity, while accepting that some problems may not be solved but have become chronic. The paper provides reflections on how to develop a scientific approach that does not aim to eradicate bad things but explores ways in which to live with them. Crucial in this quest is the attention to how we conceptualize problems, and whether this is specific enough for addressing present day concerns. I propose an anthropology of everyday ethics as a way to study people's everyday ways of handling a variety of goods in practice. I draw specific attention to exploring aesthetic values in everyday life amongst these, values that are used abundantly to qualify events in everyday life but rarely theorized in philosophy or social science., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Contemporary healthcare at all levels increasingly uses Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, since the various levels involve different tasks, have different data needs, and different ethical obligations, the AIs that are used have to be differently structured. Also, since healthcare construed as a commodity involves different ethical parameters from healthcare construed as a right, and different ethical systems entail logically distinct considerations, this also necessitates the need for differently structured AIs. This column sketches how and why this is the case. It concludes with a brief look at why AIs programmed into quantum computers would not change this., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Invalidation from healthcare practitioners is an experience shared by many patients, especially those marginalized or living with contested conditions (e.g., chronic pain, fibromyalgia, etc.). Invalidation can include not taking someone's testimony seriously, imposing one's thoughts, discrediting someone's emotions, or not perceiving someone's testimony as equal and competent. Epistemic injustices, that is, the disqualification of a person as a knower, are a form of invalidation. Epistemic injustices have been used as a theoretical framework to understand invalidation that occurs in the patient-healthcare provider relationship. However, to date, the different recommendations to achieve epistemic justice have not been listed, analyzed, nor compared yet. This paper aims at better understanding the state of the literature and to critically review possible avenues to achieve epistemic justice in healthcare. A systematic and critical review of the existing literature on epistemic justice was conducted. The search in four databases identified 629 articles, from which 35 were included in the review. Strategies to promote epistemic justice that can be applied to healthcare are mapped in the literature and sorted in six different approaches to epistemic justice, including virtuous, structural, narrative, cognitive, and partnership approaches, as well as resistance strategies. These strategies are critically appraised. A patient partnership approach based on the Montreal Model, implemented at all levels of healthcare systems, seems promising to promote epistemic justice in healthcare., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Medical-legal partnerships vary widely in how they are structured and use data to inform service delivery. Epidemiological data on certain chronic conditions' prevalence, the incidence of potentially preventable morbidity, and health-harming legal factors also influence approaches to care. This article draws on a pediatric example of how data-driven medical care complements data-driven legal care. This article also considers medical and public health ethical frameworks to guide protected information sharing, promote optimal service delivery, and achieve the best possible medical-legal outcomes., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Due to its enormous potential, artificial intelligence (AI) can transform healthcare on a seemingly infinite scale. However, as we continue to explore the immense potential of AI, it is vital to consider the ethical concerns associated with its development and deployment. One specific concern that has been flagged in the literature is the responsibility gap (RG) due to the introduction of AI in healthcare. When the use of an AI algorithm or system results in a negative outcome for a patient(s), to whom can or should responsibility for that outcome be assigned? Although the concept of the RG was introduced in Anglo-American and European philosophy, this paper aims to broaden the debate by providing an Ubuntu-inspired perspective on the RG. Ubuntu, deeply rooted in African philosophy, calls for collective responsibility, and offers a uniquely forward-looking approach to address the alleged RG caused by AI in healthcare. An Ubuntu-inspired perspective can serve as a valuable guide and tool when addressing the alleged RG. Incorporating Ubuntu into the AI ethics discourse can contribute to a more ethical and responsible integration of AI in healthcare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The carbon emissions of global healthcare activities make up 4%-5% of total world emissions, with the majority coming from industrialised countries. The solution to healthcare carbon reduction in these countries, ostensibly, would be preventive healthcare, which is less resource intensive than corrective healthcare in itself and, as a double benefit, reduces carbon by preventing diseases which may require higher healthcare carbon to treat. This leads to a paradox: preventive healthcare is designed to give humans longer, healthier lives. But, by extending life spans, the carbon emissions of a person increase both over a lifetime and in the medical industry overall. At the same time, the need for higher carbon end-of-life care does not disappear, particularly in resource intensive countries. This article will first identify sources of healthcare carbon, focusing on the industrialised world, and explain various efforts towards healthcare carbon reduction, which include preventive healthcare. Second, it will develop the 'paradox of prevention'-that preventive healthcare may save healthcare carbon by proximally reducing the need for medical treatments, but also, paradoxically, result in more healthcare carbon both in an individual's life and in the medical industry. The third section will offer ethical principles for approaching the paradox of prevention. The conclusion will emphasise the need for institutional approaches to healthcare carbon reduction in the industrialised world, which will relieve some of the tensions of healthcare industry decarbonisation and individual healthcare carbon use., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Informal mHealth is widely used by community health nurses in Ghana to extend healthcare delivery services to clients who otherwise might have been excluded from formal health systems or would experience significant barriers in their quest to access formal health services. The nurses use their private mobile phones or devices to make calls to their clients, health volunteers, colleagues or superiors. These phone calls are also reciprocal in nature. Besides, the parties exchange or share other health data and information through text messages, pictures, videos or voice clips. There are some ethical dimensions that are inherent in these practices that ought to be critically scrutinised by bioethicists., Objective: The author has argued in this paper that informal mHealth at large scale adoption in Ghana is associated with some bioethical challenges., Methods: This essay was largely based on an analysis of an empirical study published by Hampshire et al in 2021 on the use of informal mHealth methods in Ghana., Results: Widespread adoption of Informal mHealth in Ghana is associated with privacy invasion of both the nurses and their clients, breaches confidentiality of the parties, discredits the validity of informed consent processes and may predispose the nurses to some other significant aggregated harms., Conclusion: The author affirms his partial support for a formalised adoption process of informal mHealth in Ghana but has reiterated that the current ethical challenges associated with informal mHealth in Ghana cannot escape all the debilitating bioethical challenges, even if it is formalised., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In his paper 'Ethical problems with kindness in healthcare', Jesudason sets out an interesting examination of the concept of kindness, arguing that it poses significant ethical challenges due to its discretionary nature. I suggest that kindness, a concept difficult to define, may still have a role to play in healthcare. Different treatments of kindness show us that it need not be discretionary, and that kind care can be provided to all. Finally, curiosity may also have a role to play in medicine to help promote inclusiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society., Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale., Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds promise in improving diagnostics and treatment. Likewise, AI is anticipated to mitigate the impacts of staff shortages in the healthcare sector. However, realising the expectations placed on AI requires a substantial effort involving patients and clinical domain experts. Against this setting, this review examines ethical challenges related to the development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Furthermore, we introduce and discuss various approaches, guidelines, and standards that proactively aim to address ethical challenges., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

This article looks at the effects of armed conflict on healthcare systems in Gaza at the intersection of international humanitarian aid, settler colonialism and the ethics of war. Since October 7, 2023, there has been a systemic assault on the health services in Gaza, rooted in colonial expansion. I begin with an overview of human rights and the concept of medical neutrality. This is followed by biopolitics within Gaza and the contradictions in international law regarding the ethics of war. Explained through the lens of historical revisionism, postcolonial theory and biopolitics, I attempt to highlight how healthcare systems are increasingly becoming targets of armed conflict in Gaza as a war strategy.

The commentary "Public health ethics and the Kerala Public Health Act, 2023" published on January 27, 2024 in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) has received a response from members of the State Health Systems Resource Centre and Government Medical College, Malappuram, Kerala. They explain that the Kerala Public Health Act (KPHA) is a legal document and not required to explicitly include accountability mechanisms and social obligations of the state. Given the very real danger of state over-reach as was evident during the Covid pandemic, these checks and balances should, in fact, be non-negotiable. The position of KPHA on healthcare of migrant workers and patients with tuberculosis goes against existing public healthcare principles. There is therefore a need to revisit the Act to explicitly include state accountability.

Catholic health care is often viewed as antithetical to secular conceptions of autonomy. This view can engender calls to protect "choice" in Catholic facilities. However, this view is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs). This commentary, which responds to "Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience," by Abram Brummett et al., seeks to demonstrate the nuance of the ERDs as well as to address some of the challenges various Catholic identities have when interpreting and living out the ERDs so that all patients receive high-quality, compassionate care. By highlighting the Church's desire to protect all people at every stage, I hope to dispel the caricatures that often result from misunderstandings by Catholics and non-Catholics alike., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Health leaders are faced with a lack of public trust in healthcare governance. This waning trust relationship was further solidified through the pandemic. Improving the relationship between health organizations and the community/citizens/patient partners is a moral imperative of which ethical governance is a significant factor. This article will structure the ethical analysis of patient partners in governance through reviewing who we are, how we function, and what we do on governance boards. Taking an ethical approach will enable the promise of the value and impact of the patient partner to be actualized. Ethical governance that recognizes the significant contributions and value of engaged patient partners can be achieved and may be one of the significant levers required to transform healthcare., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Rare diseases are generally poorly understood from scientific and medical standpoints due, to their complexity and low prevalence. As a result, individuals living with rare diseases struggle to obtain timely diagnoses and suitable care. These clinical difficulties add to the physical and psychological impacts of living with chronic and often severe medical conditions. From the standpoint of pragmatist ethics, the morally problematic situations that adults living with rare diseases experience matter crucially. However, there is little known about these experiences., Methods: A survey study was conducted with 121 adults living with rare diseases in Québec, Canada, to identify morally problematic situations encountered in the healthcare system and everyday life as part of a participatory action research project. Morally problematic situations elicited internal tensions and constraints to agency., Results: Adults living with rare diseases experienced morally problematic situations of stigmatization, disbelief, and sometimes abuse in the healthcare system. These situations were compounded by diagnostic delays, inadequate care, and suboptimal follow-up, and led some individuals to opt-out of medical care. In their personal lives, these individuals sometimes found themselves in situations of physical and financial dependency. They often also had to give up professional occupations, academic training, or life projects., Conclusions: Adults living with rare diseases experience important morally problematic situations navigating the healthcare system and their everyday lives, some of which could be alleviated through interventions developed through future participatory action research.

Public collective hunger strikes take place in complex social and political contexts, require medical attention and present ethical challenges to physicians. Empirical research, the ethical debate to date and existing guidelines by the World Medical Association focus almost exclusively on hunger strikes in detention. However, the public space differs substantially with regard to the conditions for the provision of health care and the diverse groups of healthcare providers or stakeholders involved. By reviewing empirical research on the experience of health professionals with public collective hunger strikes, we identified the following ethical challenges: (1) establishment of a trustful physician-striker relationship, (2) balancing of medico-ethical principles in medical decision-making, (3) handling of loyalty conflicts and (4) preservation of professional independence and the risk of political instrumentalization. Some of these challenges have already been described and discussed, yet not contextualized for public collective strikes, while others are novel. The presence of voluntary physicians may offer opportunities for a trustful relationship and, hence, for ethical treatment decisions. According to our findings, it requires more attention to how to realise autonomous medical decisions in the complex context of a dynamic, often unstructured and politically charged setting, which ethical norms should shape the professional role of voluntary physicians, and what is the influence of the hunger strikers' collective on individual healthcare decisions. Our article can serve as a starting point for further ethical discussion. It can also provide the basis for the development of potential guidelines to support health professionals involved in public collective hunger strikes., (© 2024 The Author(s). Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In an effort to improve the quality of medical care, the philosophy of patient-centered care has become integrated into almost every aspect of the medical community. Despite its widespread acceptance, among patients and practitioners, there are concerns that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence may threaten elements of patient-centered care, such as personal relationships with care providers and patient-driven choices. This study explores the extent to which patients are confident in and comfortable with the use of these technologies when it comes to their own individual care and identifies areas that may align with or threaten elements of patient-centered care., Methods: An exploratory, mixed-method approach was used to analyze survey data from 600 US-based adults in the State of Florida. The survey was administered through a leading market research provider (August 10-21, 2023), and responses were collected to be representative of the state's population based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation., Results: Respondents were more comfortable with the use of AI in health-related tasks that were not associated with doctor-patient relationships, such as scheduling patient appointments or follow-ups (84.2%). Fear of losing the 'human touch' associated with doctors was a common theme within qualitative coding, suggesting a potential conflict between the implementation of AI and patient-centered care. In addition, decision self-efficacy was associated with higher levels of comfort with AI, but there were also concerns about losing decision-making control, workforce changes, and cost concerns. A small majority of participants mentioned that AI could be useful for doctors and lead to more equitable care but only when used within limits., Conclusion: The application of AI in medical care is rapidly advancing, but oversight, regulation, and guidance addressing critical aspects of patient-centered care are lacking. While there is no evidence that AI will undermine patient-physician relationships at this time, there is concern on the part of patients regarding the application of AI within medical care and specifically as it relates to their interaction with physicians. Medical guidance on incorporating AI while adhering to the principles of patient-centered care is needed to clarify how AI will augment medical care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Green bioethics is an area of research and scholarship that examines the impact of healthcare practices and policies on the environment and emphasises environmental values, such as ecological sustainability and stewardship. Some green bioethicists have argued that healthcare providers should inform patients about the environmental impacts of treatments and advocate for options that minimise adverse impacts. While disclosure of information pertaining to the environmental impacts of treatments could facilitate autonomous decision-making and strengthen the patient-provider relationship in situations where patients have clearly expressed environmental concerns, it may have the opposite effect in other situations if makes patients feel like they are being judged or manipulated. We argue, therefore, that there is not a generalisable duty to disclose environmental impact information to all patients during the consent process. Providers who practice green bioethics should focus on advocating for system-level changes in healthcare financing, organisation and delivery and use discretion when bringing up environmental concerns in their encounters with patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is growing attention and evidence that healthcare AI is vulnerable to racial bias. Despite the renewed attention to racism in the United States, racism is often disconnected from the literature on ethical AI. Addressing racism as an ethical issue will facilitate the development of trustworthy and responsible healthcare AI., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests K.F. is a member of the All of Us Research Program’s institutional review board and a member of the digital ethics advisory board of Merck KGaA. E.O.N. is part of the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Consortium to Advance Health Equity and Researcher Diversity (AIM-AHEAD) Program team at the National Institutes of Health through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

While the technologies that enable Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to advance rapidly, there are increasing promises regarding AI's beneficial outputs and concerns about the challenges of human-computer interaction in healthcare. To address these concerns, institutions have increasingly resorted to publishing AI guidelines for healthcare, aiming to align AI with ethical practices. However, guidelines as a form of written language can be analyzed to recognize the reciprocal links between its textual communication and underlying societal ideas. From this perspective, we conducted a discourse analysis to understand how these guidelines construct, articulate, and frame ethics for AI in healthcare. We included eight guidelines and identified three prevalent and interwoven discourses: (1) AI is unavoidable and desirable; (2) AI needs to be guided with (some forms of) principles (3) trust in AI is instrumental and primary. These discourses signal an over-spillage of technical ideals to AI ethics, such as over-optimism and resulting hyper-criticism. This research provides insights into the underlying ideas present in AI guidelines and how guidelines influence the practice and alignment of AI with ethical, legal, and societal values expected to shape AI in healthcare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider's moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method we use for deriving the healthcare norms should itself be a democratic, context-dependent inquiry. To this end, I begin by describing some prerequisites-which I call publicity conditions-for any democratic account of healthcare norms that conflict or jibe with CR. Next, drawing on Ronald Dworkin's jurisprudence and Tom Beauchamp & James Childress's approach to bioethical reasoning, I briefly introduce one method for generating healthcare norms that is faithful to the publicity conditions and has potential to constructively, and democratically, derive important boundaries for CR. Finally, I argue that many critics of CR fail to similarly ground their accounts of healthcare norms in healthcare professionals' sociopolitical contexts, often relying instead on their own interpretation of a generally stateable healthcare norm. This leads to their misconstruing both the value judgments on which their own approaches rest and the public, political values that are often invoked in favor of CR., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Machine-learning algorithms have the potential to revolutionise diagnostic and prognostic tasks in health care, yet algorithmic performance levels can be materially worse for subgroups that have been underrepresented in algorithmic training data. Given this epistemic deficit, the inclusion of underrepresented groups in algorithmic processes can result in harm. Yet delaying the deployment of algorithmic systems until more equitable results can be achieved would avoidably and foreseeably lead to a significant number of unnecessary deaths in well-represented populations. Faced with this dilemma between equity and utility, we draw on two case studies involving breast cancer and melanoma to argue for the selective deployment of diagnostic and prognostic tools for some well-represented groups, even if this results in the temporary exclusion of underrepresented patients from algorithmic approaches. We argue that this approach is justifiable when the inclusion of underrepresented patients would cause them to be harmed. While the context of historic injustice poses a considerable challenge for the ethical acceptability of selective algorithmic deployment strategies, we argue that, at least for the case studies addressed in this article, the issue of historic injustice is better addressed through nonalgorithmic measures, including being transparent with patients about the nature of the current epistemic deficits, providing additional services to algorithmically excluded populations, and through urgent commitments to gather additional algorithmic training data from excluded populations, paving the way for universal algorithmic deployment that is accurate for all patient groups. These commitments should be supported by regulation and, where necessary, government funding to ensure that any delays for excluded groups are kept to the minimum. We offer an ethical algorithm for algorithms-showing when to ethically delay, expedite, or selectively deploy algorithmic systems in healthcare settings., (© 2024 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Civility is an essential feature of health care, as it is in so many other areas of human interaction. The article examines the meaning of civility, reviews its origins, and provides reasons for its moral significance in health care. It describes common types of uncivil behavior by health care professionals, patients, and visitors in hospitals and other health care settings, and it suggests strategies to prevent and respond to uncivil behavior, including institutional codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures. The article concludes that uncivil behavior toward health care professionals, patients, and others subverts the moral goals of health care and is therefore unacceptable. Civility is a basic professional duty that health care professionals should embrace, model, and teach., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: At the beginning of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, many non-Covid healthcare services were suspended. In April 2020, the Department of Health in England mandated that non-Covid services should resume, alongside the continuing pandemic response. This 'resetting' of healthcare services created a unique context in which it became critical to consider how ethical considerations did (and should) underpin decisions about integrating infection control measures into routine healthcare practices. We draw on data collected as part of the 'NHS Reset Ethics' project, which explored the everyday ethical challenges of resetting England's NHS maternity and paediatrics services during the pandemic., Methods: Healthcare professionals and members of the public participated in interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative methods are reported in detail elsewhere. The focus of this article is our use of Frith's symbiotic empirical ethics methodology to work from our empirical findings towards the normative suggestion that clinical ethics should explicitly attend to the importance of relationships in clinical practice. This methodology uses a five-step approach to refine and develop ethical theory based on a naturalist account of ethics that sees practice and theory as symbiotically related., Results: The Reset project data showed that changed working practices caused ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, and that infection prevention and control measures represented harmful barriers to the experience of receiving and offering care. For healthcare professionals, offering care as part of a relational interaction was an ethically important dimension of healthcare delivery., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that foregrounding the importance of relationships across a hospital community will better promote the ethically important multi-directional expression of caring between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. We offer two suggestions for making progress towards such a relational approach. First, that there is a change of emphasis in clinical ethics practice to explicitly acknowledge the importance of the relationships (including with their healthcare team) within which the patient is held. Second, that organisational decision-making should take into account the moral significance afforded to caring relationships by healthcare professionals, and the role such relationships can play in the negotiation of ethical challenges., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Health Recommender Systems are promising Articial-Intelligence-based tools endowing healthy lifestyles and therapy adherence in healthcare and medicine. Among the most supported areas, it is worth mentioning active aging. However, current HRS supporting AA raise ethical challenges that still need to be properly formalized and explored. This study proposes to rethink HRS for AA through an autonomy-based ethical analysis. In particular, a brief overview of the HRS' technical aspects allows us to shed light on the ethical risks and challenges they might raise on individuals' well-being as they age. Moreover, the study proposes a categorization, understanding, and possible preventive/mitigation actions for the elicited risks and challenges through rethinking the AI ethics core principle of autonomy. Finally, elaborating on autonomy-related ethical theories, the paper proposes an autonomy-based ethical framework and how it can foster the development of autonomy-enabling HRS for AA., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Digital twins have emerged as a groundbreaking concept in personalized medicine, offering immense potential to transform health care delivery and improve patient outcomes. It is important to highlight the impact of digital twins on personalized medicine across the understanding of patient health, risk assessment, clinical trials and drug development, and patient monitoring. By mirroring individual health profiles, digital twins offer unparalleled insights into patient-specific conditions, enabling more accurate risk assessments and tailored interventions. However, their application extends beyond clinical benefits, prompting significant ethical debates over data privacy, consent, and potential biases in health care. The rapid evolution of this technology necessitates a careful balancing act between innovation and ethical responsibility. As the field of personalized medicine continues to evolve, digital twins hold tremendous promise in transforming health care delivery and revolutionizing patient care. While challenges exist, the continued development and integration of digital twins hold the potential to revolutionize personalized medicine, ushering in an era of tailored treatments and improved patient well-being. Digital twins can assist in recognizing trends and indicators that might signal the presence of diseases or forecast the likelihood of developing specific medical conditions, along with the progression of such diseases. Nevertheless, the use of human digital twins gives rise to ethical dilemmas related to informed consent, data ownership, and the potential for discrimination based on health profiles. There is a critical need for robust guidelines and regulations to navigate these challenges, ensuring that the pursuit of advanced health care solutions does not compromise patient rights and well-being. This viewpoint aims to ignite a comprehensive dialogue on the responsible integration of digital twins in medicine, advocating for a future where technology serves as a cornerstone for personalized, ethical, and effective patient care., (©Alexandre Vallée. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.05.2024.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

THE ETHICS OF IA IN MEDICINE MUST BE BASED ON THE PRACTICAL ETHICS OF THE HEALTHCARE RELATIONSHIP. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers more and more applications on the Internet, smartphones, computers, telemedicine. AI is growing rapidly in health. Transdisciplinary, AI must respect software engineering (reliability, robustness, security), knowledge obsolescence, law, ethics because a wide variety of algorithms, more or less opaque, process personal data help clinical decision. Hospital or city doctors and caregivers question the benefits/risks/costs of AI for the patient, the care relationship, deontology and medical ethics. Drawing on 30 years of experience in AI and medical ethics, the author proposes a first indicator of the ethical risks of AI (axis 1) evaluated by the surface of a radar diagram defined on the other 6 axes: Semantics, Opacity and acceptability, Complexity and autonomy, Target population, Actors (roles and motivations). Highly autonomous strong AI carries the most ethic risks., Competing Interests: J. Colloc déclare avoir participé à des conférences et rapports d’expertise pour l’université du Havre UMR, IDEES 6266 (contrat avec l’entreprise Sanofi, octobre 2019) et avoir été pris en charge, à l’occasion de déplacements pour congrès, par l’université du Havre, UMR, IDEES 6266.

Background: Care provision received renewed attention during the Covid-19 pandemic as several healthcare providers vied for the coveted title of "frontline warrior" while they struggled to provide care efficiently under varying health system constraints. While several studies on the health workforce during the pandemic highlighted their difficulties, there is little reflection on what "care" or "caring" itself meant specifically for community health workers (CHWs) as they navigated different community and health systems settings. The aim of the study was to examine CHWs' care-giving experiences during the pandemic., Methods: Twenty narrative interviews with CHWs including ASHAs (Accredited Social Health Activists) and ANMs (Auxiliary Nurse Midwives) were conducted in different states between July and December 2020., Results: Our findings highlight the moral, affectual, and relational dimensions of care in the CHWs' engagement with their routine and Covid-19 related services, as well as the "technical" aspects of it. In this article, we argue that these two aspects are, in fact, enmeshed in complex ways. CHWs extend this moral understanding not just to their work, but also to their relationship with the health system and the government, as they express a deep sense of neglect and the lack of "being cared for" by the health system., Conclusion: CHWs' experiences demand a more nuanced understanding of the ethics of care or caring that challenges the binaries between the "technical" and moral aspects of care.

Objective: Moral distress is a complex phenomenon experienced by healthcare professionals. This study examined the relationships between key dimensions of Organizational Culture in Healthcare (OCHC)-perceived psychological safety, ethical climate, patient safety-and healthcare professionals' perception of moral distress., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: Pediatric and adult critical care medicine, and adult hospital medicine healthcare professionals in the United States., Participants: Physicians ( n  = 260), nurses ( n  = 256), and advanced practice providers ( n  = 110) participated in the study., Main Outcome Measures: Three dimensions of OCHC were measured using validated questionnaires: Olson's Hospital Ethical Climate Survey, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Culture Survey, and Edmondson's Team Psychological Safety Survey. The perception of moral distress was measured using the Moral Distress Amidst a Pandemic Survey. The hypothesized relationships between various dimensions were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM)., Results: Adequate model fit was achieved in the SEM: a root-mean-square error of approximation =0.072 (90% CI 0.069 to 0.075), standardized root mean square residual = 0.056, and comparative fit index =0.926. Perceived psychological safety (β= -0.357, p <.001) and patient safety culture (β = -0.428, p <.001) were negatively related to moral distress experience. There was no significant association between ethical climate and moral distress (β = 0.106, p  = 0.319). Ethical Climate, however, was highly correlated with Patient Safety Culture (factor correlation= 0.82)., Conclusions: We used structural equation model to test a theoretical model of multi-dimensional organizational culture and healthcare climate (OCHC) and moral distress.Significant associations were found, supporting mitigating strategies to optimize psychological safety and patient safety culture to address moral distress among healthcare professionals. Future initiatives and studies should account for key dimensions of OCHC with multi-pronged targets to preserve the moral well-being of individuals, teams, and organizations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated into every aspect of medicine and promises to provide accurate diagnosis, better management decision and improved outcome for patients and healthcare system. However, ethical, social and legal issues need to be resolved for successful implementation of AI tools in clinical practice. In order to gain trust and acceptance, AI algorithms should offer maximum explainability and inclusiveness. Robust evidence of benefit to patients and healthcare services has to be provided to gain justification of using these tools. Doctor-patient relationship needs to be maintained in order to gain trust and acceptance of users. Autonomy of decisions and dignity of patients need to be preserved while using machine in healthcare. Responsibility and accountability in the use of AI in medicine should be deliberated and defined before mishaps and damage occur. A new role of healthcare providers will emerge with the advancement of technology and changes are inevitable. This manuscript is based on the Gordon Arthur Ransome Lecture 2022 entitled "Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Ethical, Social and Legal Perspective". It represents the opinion of the orator.

We applied natural language processing and topic modeling to publicly available abstracts and titles of 263 papers in the scientific literature mentioning AI and demographics (corpus 1 before Covid-19, corpus 2 after Covid-19) extracted from the MEDLINE database. We found exponential growth of AI studies mentioning demographics since the pandemic (Before Covid-19: N= 40 vs. After Covid-19: N= 223) [forecast model equation: ln(Number of Records) = 250.543*ln(Year) + -1904.38, p = 0.0005229]. Topics related to diagnostic imaging, quality of life, Covid, psychology, and smartphone increased during the pandemic, while cancer-related topics decreased. The application of topic modeling to the scientific literature on AI and demographics provides a foundation for the next steps regarding developing guidelines for the ethical use of AI for African American dementia caregivers.