All
 
|
 
 


Transformation of the Physician-patient Relationship: From Bioethics to Roboethics
 
PIIS023620070029305-2-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070029305-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Elena V. Vvedenskaya 
Affiliation: Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAS)
Address: 51/21 Nakhimovsky Prospekt, 117418 Moscow, Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 34 Issue 6
Pages65-83
Abstract

In the context of the active development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems and robotics in healthcare, the physician-patient relationship is undergoing changes. The transformation of these relations caused by the problems of interrelation of the basic bioethical principles and new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases is considered. Using concrete examples, new opportunities and risks caused by the widespread use of automation in medicine are revealed. Conflict situations between human norms and algorithms are analyzed. The issues of responsibility for robot errors, as well as privacy and cybersecurity issues are considered. It is noted that by the beginning of the 21st century, there was a need for an ethical assessment of robotics, since technical decisions taken in the design of robots have the potential to directly and significantly affect people's lives. In this regard, roboethics arose, the concept of which is analyzed in the article. The laws of robotics were formulated by I. Asimov and F. Pasquale. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that in the field of healthcare, programs should be developed that rely on human strength. The necessity of finding a balance between the automation of medical practice and the maintenance of the humanistic essence of the physician-patient relationship is emphasized. A comparative analysis of the fundamental principles of bioethics and roboethics is carried out. Despite the fact that they have the same goals and values, in roboetics these principles are characterized by a number of features. The principle related only to roboethics — explainability — requires algorithm developers to explain the general rationale and methodology for solving artificial intelligence. In conclusion, it is concluded that medical robotics and artificial intelligence systems provide great prospects for improving diagnosis, treatment and the general level of medical care, but their use raises important ethical issues that need to be addressed. The basic principles of bioethics should be preserved, and roboethics can help to define the framework and standards for the use of robots in medical practice.

Keywordsbioethics, principles of bioethics, roboethics, the principle of explainability, autonomy, confidentiality, cybersecurity, prejudice, artificial intelligence systems, robotics
Received27.12.2023
Publication date27.12.2023
Number of characters34307
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 139

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Azimov A. Horovod [Round dance]. Transl. from English by D.A. Iordansky. Chernyj stolb: sbornik nauch.-fantastich. povestej i rasskazov [Black Pillar: a collection of science fiction stories]. Moscow: Knowledge Publ., 1963.
2. Vvedenskaya E.V. Aktual'nye problemy roboetiki [Actual problems of roboethics]. Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya. 2019. P. 88–101.
3. Paskuale F. Novye zakony robototekhniki: apologiya chelovecheskih znanij v epohu iskusstvennogo intellekta [New laws of robotics: an apology for human knowledge in the era of artificial intelligence]. Transl. from English by A. Korolev. Moscow: RANEPA Delo Publ., 2022.
4. Potter Van R. Bioetika: most v budushchee [Bioethics: a Bridge to the Future]. Ed. by S.V. Vekovshinina, V.L. Kulinichenko, transl. from English by T.G. Budkovskaya, S.V. Vekovshinina. Kiev: Karpenko Publ., 2002.
5. Tishchenko P.D. Chto takoe bioetika? Bioetika: voprosy i otvety [What is bioethics? Bioethics: questions and answers]. Moscow: UNESCO Publ., 2005.
6. Age U. Only the Tip of the Iceberg: Fraud against Older People; Age UK: London, UK, 2015.
7. Ayers J.W, Poliak А., Dredze М. et al. Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2023. N 183(6). P 589–596.
8. Beauchamp Т., Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. P. 141–147.
9. Beauchamp T.L., Walters L.R., Kahn J.P. et al. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Thomson Wadsworth USA. 2008.
10. Boch A.,Ryan S., Kriebitz A. at al. Beyond the Metal Flesh: Understanding the Intersection between Bio- and AI Ethics for Robotics in Healthcare. Robotics. 2023. 12(4), 110. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics12040110  (date of access: 22.08.2023).
11. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, European Commission, Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 16. 2018. URL: https://publications.curopa.cu/en/publication.  detail/-/publication/dfebe62e-qceg-11e8-beid-olaa75ed71a1 (date of access: 22.08.2023).
12. Floridi L., Cowls J., Beltrametti M.,; Chatila R., Chazerand P., Dignum V., Luetge C., Madelin R., Pagall, U., Rossi F., et al. AI4People — An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines. 2018.N28. P. 689–707.
13. IEEE, Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically Aligned Design 39. 2019. URL: https:/ standards.iece.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ (date of access: 22.08.2023).
14. Gichoya J.W., Banerjee I., Bhimireddy A.R. AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study. The Lancet Digital Health. 2022. Vol. 4. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500 (22)00063-2 (date of access: 22.08.2023).
15. McDougall R.J. Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2018. N 45(3):156. URL: https:// doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105118 (date of access: 22.08.2023).
16. Pawar U., O’Shea D., Rea S., O’Reilly R. Explainable AI in Healthcare. Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment (CyberSA), Dublin, Ireland, 15–19 June 2020. NJ, USA: IEEE Piscataway. P. 1–2.
17. Picchi А. Eating disorder helpline shuts down AI chatbot that gave bad advice. CBS Interactive Inc. 2023. URL: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-disorder-helpline-chatbot-disabled/  (date of access: 22.08.2023).
18. Sand M., Durán J.M., Jongsma K.R. Responsibility beyond design: Physicians’ requirements for ethical medical AI. Bioethics. 2022. N 36. P. 162–169. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12887  (date of access: 22.08.2023).
19. Tan S.Y., Taeihagh A., Tripathi A. Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care. Technological Forecasting аnd Social Change. 2021. N 167. URL: https://doi.org  /10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120686 (date of access: 22.08.2023).
20. Veatch R. M. Models for Medicine in a Revolutionary Age. Hastings Center Report. 1972. Vol. 2, N 3. P. 5–7.
21. Verruggio G. EURON Roboethics Roadmap.  Scuola di Robotica. 2006. URL: http://www.roboethics.org/atelier2006/docs/ROBOETHICS%20ROADMAP%20Rel2.1.1.pdf  (date of access: 22.08.2023).
22. Veruggio G. Roboethics. Robotics & Automation Magazine. IEEE. 2010. Vol. 17, iss. 2. P. 105–109.
23. Žaliauskaitė M. Role of ruler or intruder? Patient’s right to autonomy in the age of innovation and technologies. AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication. 2021. Vol. 36. P. 573–583.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up