Search

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients. Methods A questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Results Participants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI’s ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS. Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist. Conclusions German physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions.

Abstract Background Healthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decision-making. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis. Results Artificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process. Conclusions The prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human–machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far. Trial registration This review is registered at Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wvcs9 ).

IntroductionHead-mounted displays (HMDs) that superimpose holograms onto patients are of particular surgical interest as they are believed to dramatically change surgical procedures by including safety warning and allowing real-time offsite consultations. Although there are promising benefits of mixed and augmented reality (MR/AR) technologies in surgery, they also raise new ethical concerns. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the full spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for surgeons in the intraoperative application of MR/AR technology.MethodsFive bibliographic databases were searched for publications on the use of MR/AR, HMDs and other devices, their intraoperative application in surgery, and ethical issues. We applied qualitative content analysis to the n = 50 articles included. Firstly, we coded the material with deductive categories derived from ethical frameworks for surgical innovations, complications and research. Secondly, clinical aspects with ethical relevance were inductively coded as ethical issues within the main categories. Thirdly, we pooled the ethical issues into themes and sub-themes. We report our findings according to the reporting guideline RESERVE.ResultsWe found n = 143 ethical issues across ten main themes, namely patient-physician relationship, informed consent, professionalism, research and innovation, legal and regulatory issues, functioning equipment and optimal operating conditions, allocation of resources, minimizing harm, good communication skills and the ability to exercise sound judgement. The five most prevalent ethical issues are “Need for continuous research and innovation”, “Ensuring improvement of the learning curve”, “MR/AR enables new maneuvers for surgeons”, “Ensuring improvement of comfort, ergonomics, and usability of devices,” and “Not withholding MR/AR if it performs better”.ConclusionsRecognizing the evidence-based limitations of the intraoperative MR/AR application is of paramount importance to avoid ethical issues, but clinical trials in surgery pose particular ethical risks for patients. Regarding the digital surgeon, long-term impact on human workforce, potentially harmful “negative training,” i.e., acquiring inappropriate behaviors, and the fear of surveillance need further attention. MR/AR technologies offer not only challenges but significant advantages, promoting a more equitable distribution of surgical expertise and optimizing healthcare. Aligned with the core principle of social justice, these technologies enable surgeons to collaborate globally, improving training conditions and addressing enduring global healthcare inequalities.