TL;DR
The article introduces algorithmic moral burden as a sociotechnical and ethical condition requiring the conjunction of meaningful AI influence, continuing professional answerability, and constrained evaluative authority.
Physicians treated AI as an instrument rather than a bearer of responsibility, which is unsurprising, and personal responsibility was retained across all decision contexts, while what varied was the admissibility of institutional constraints as excuses and the emphasis placed on the institution's share.
The article argues that AI may inform clinical judgment without acquiring morally exhaustive authority over the person to whom healthcare remains answerable and concludes that AI may inform clinical judgment without acquiring morally exhaustive authority over the person to whom healthcare remains answerable.
This paper distinguishes technical reliability from trust in AI-supported clinical decision-making, arguing that the two belong to distinct registers that current debates tend to elide and proposes replacing the expression "trustworthy AI" with "technically reliable AI," a distinction that relocates the conditions of t...
BACKGROUND The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare offers significant potential for enhancing patient care, particularly for incapacitated patients unable to communicate their preferences. Advanced AI systems, such as Personalized Patient Preference Predictors (P4), are increasingly proposed as...
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.
