Patient autonomy and new technological advances in medicine

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-05-06 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13426
Marina Morla-González
{"title":"Patient autonomy and new technological advances in medicine","authors":"Marina Morla-González","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The rapid advancement of technology in medicine presents new and complex ethical challenges. This special issue of Bioethics is dedicated to exploring the intersection between patient autonomy and emerging medical technologies. From artificial intelligence to digital medication, robotic care, and reproductive biotechnologies, the contributions in this issue delve into how these innovations reshape ethical considerations in healthcare.</p><p>Patient autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics, ensuring that individuals retain the right to make informed decisions about their own healthcare. However, technological progress often introduces tensions between autonomy, beneficence, justice, and privacy. The articles in this issue address these tensions by analyzing the risks and benefits of new technologies, assessing regulatory gaps, and proposing ethical frameworks to navigate these changes.</p><p>One of the most pressing issues explored is the development of autonomous neurosurgical robots (ANRs). While these robots promise increased surgical precision and reduced complications, they also raise concerns about the erosion of human surgical skills, legal uncertainty, and unforeseen patient risks. The ethical dilemma lies in whether society should embrace ANRs despite these potential drawbacks, and if so, how to ensure transparency and accountability in their implementation.</p><p>Similarly, the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, as examined in this issue, highlights the risks of bias in AI health systems. While AI has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficiency, biases in algorithmic decision-making could result in discriminatory healthcare outcomes. The current regulatory landscape in Europe may not sufficiently mitigate these risks, prompting a discussion on alternative policies to ensure fairness and accountability.</p><p>Another critical area of concern is the use of digital medication and mobile health technologies. While digital pills and mobile health tools claim to empower patients by providing greater control over their treatments, they also introduce risks related to privacy, data security, and potential paternalism. This issue presents a nuanced discussion on how such technologies might inadvertently undermine shared decision-making and the doctor–patient relationship.</p><p>Ethical tensions also arise in the implementation of assistive robots for elderly care. While robots like ROB-IN offer support for older adults, their use raises questions about privacy, autonomy, and the risk of ageism. This issue explores the balance between providing technological assistance and ensuring that these innovations do not infringe upon the dignity and independence of aged individuals.</p><p>Reproductive autonomy is another key theme, particularly in the context of reprogenetic technologies and digital contraception for women with disabilities. The evolution of reproductive technologies has led to shifts in societal values, necessitating a critical examination of how these changes impact individual choice and broader ethical considerations. The ethical analysis of contraceptive digital pills, for instance, reveals both the potential for greater reproductive autonomy and the risks of coercion or misuse.</p><p>Additionally, the collection includes an analysis of the confidentiality and nondiscrimination rights of employees undergoing medical tests, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding personal health data. Moreover, a transnational review of the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in healthcare highlights the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach to digital transformation in medicine.</p><p>Lastly, the legal and ethical implications of forced medical interventions, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in emergency situations, bring to light the conflict between autonomy and the principle of beneficence. This case study analysis serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between protecting patient rights and ensuring their well-being.</p><p>Taken together, the articles in this issue provide a comprehensive and thought-provoking examination of the ethical dilemmas posed by emerging medical technologies. They highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach—incorporating ethics, law, medicine, and policy—to navigate the challenges ahead. By engaging with these discussions, we hope to contribute to a more ethically robust and patient-centered future in medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 5","pages":"403"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13426","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13426","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid advancement of technology in medicine presents new and complex ethical challenges. This special issue of Bioethics is dedicated to exploring the intersection between patient autonomy and emerging medical technologies. From artificial intelligence to digital medication, robotic care, and reproductive biotechnologies, the contributions in this issue delve into how these innovations reshape ethical considerations in healthcare.

Patient autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics, ensuring that individuals retain the right to make informed decisions about their own healthcare. However, technological progress often introduces tensions between autonomy, beneficence, justice, and privacy. The articles in this issue address these tensions by analyzing the risks and benefits of new technologies, assessing regulatory gaps, and proposing ethical frameworks to navigate these changes.

One of the most pressing issues explored is the development of autonomous neurosurgical robots (ANRs). While these robots promise increased surgical precision and reduced complications, they also raise concerns about the erosion of human surgical skills, legal uncertainty, and unforeseen patient risks. The ethical dilemma lies in whether society should embrace ANRs despite these potential drawbacks, and if so, how to ensure transparency and accountability in their implementation.

Similarly, the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, as examined in this issue, highlights the risks of bias in AI health systems. While AI has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficiency, biases in algorithmic decision-making could result in discriminatory healthcare outcomes. The current regulatory landscape in Europe may not sufficiently mitigate these risks, prompting a discussion on alternative policies to ensure fairness and accountability.

Another critical area of concern is the use of digital medication and mobile health technologies. While digital pills and mobile health tools claim to empower patients by providing greater control over their treatments, they also introduce risks related to privacy, data security, and potential paternalism. This issue presents a nuanced discussion on how such technologies might inadvertently undermine shared decision-making and the doctor–patient relationship.

Ethical tensions also arise in the implementation of assistive robots for elderly care. While robots like ROB-IN offer support for older adults, their use raises questions about privacy, autonomy, and the risk of ageism. This issue explores the balance between providing technological assistance and ensuring that these innovations do not infringe upon the dignity and independence of aged individuals.

Reproductive autonomy is another key theme, particularly in the context of reprogenetic technologies and digital contraception for women with disabilities. The evolution of reproductive technologies has led to shifts in societal values, necessitating a critical examination of how these changes impact individual choice and broader ethical considerations. The ethical analysis of contraceptive digital pills, for instance, reveals both the potential for greater reproductive autonomy and the risks of coercion or misuse.

Additionally, the collection includes an analysis of the confidentiality and nondiscrimination rights of employees undergoing medical tests, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding personal health data. Moreover, a transnational review of the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in healthcare highlights the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach to digital transformation in medicine.

Lastly, the legal and ethical implications of forced medical interventions, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in emergency situations, bring to light the conflict between autonomy and the principle of beneficence. This case study analysis serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between protecting patient rights and ensuring their well-being.

Taken together, the articles in this issue provide a comprehensive and thought-provoking examination of the ethical dilemmas posed by emerging medical technologies. They highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach—incorporating ethics, law, medicine, and policy—to navigate the challenges ahead. By engaging with these discussions, we hope to contribute to a more ethically robust and patient-centered future in medicine.

病人自主和医学新技术的进步
医学技术的快速发展提出了新的和复杂的伦理挑战。本期《生命伦理学》特刊致力于探索患者自主与新兴医疗技术之间的交集。从人工智能到数字医疗、机器人护理和生殖生物技术,本期的贡献深入探讨了这些创新如何重塑医疗保健中的伦理考虑。患者自主权是医学伦理的基石,它确保个人保留对自己的医疗保健做出知情决定的权利。然而,技术进步经常在自治、慈善、正义和隐私之间引入紧张关系。本期的文章通过分析新技术的风险和收益、评估监管缺口以及提出应对这些变化的道德框架来解决这些紧张关系。其中一个最紧迫的问题是自主神经外科机器人(ANRs)的发展。虽然这些机器人有望提高手术精度,减少并发症,但它们也引起了人们对人类手术技能的侵蚀、法律的不确定性和不可预见的患者风险的担忧。道德困境在于,尽管存在这些潜在的缺点,社会是否应该接受自动自动应答器,如果是这样,如何确保其实施的透明度和问责制。同样,正如本期研究的那样,人工智能(AI)在医疗保健领域的作用越来越大,凸显了人工智能医疗系统中存在偏见的风险。虽然人工智能有可能提高诊断准确性和治疗效率,但算法决策中的偏见可能导致歧视性的医疗保健结果。欧洲目前的监管格局可能不足以缓解这些风险,促使人们讨论替代政策,以确保公平和问责制。另一个令人关切的关键领域是数字医疗和移动保健技术的使用。虽然数字药片和移动医疗工具声称通过提供更好的治疗控制来赋予患者权力,但它们也带来了与隐私、数据安全以及潜在的家长式作风相关的风险。这个问题提出了一个微妙的讨论,关于这些技术如何无意中破坏共同决策和医患关系。在老年人护理辅助机器人的实施中也出现了伦理紧张局势。虽然像robin这样的机器人为老年人提供支持,但它们的使用引发了有关隐私、自主性和年龄歧视风险的问题。这个问题探讨了提供技术援助和确保这些创新不侵犯老年人的尊严和独立之间的平衡。生殖自主是另一个关键主题,特别是在生殖技术和残疾妇女数字避孕的背景下。生殖技术的发展导致了社会价值观的转变,需要对这些变化如何影响个人选择和更广泛的伦理考虑进行批判性审查。例如,对数字避孕药的伦理分析揭示了更大的生殖自主权的潜力和强迫或滥用的风险。此外,收集的资料还包括对接受体检的雇员的保密和不歧视权利的分析,强调保护个人健康数据的重要性。此外,对信息和通信技术(ict)在医疗保健中的整合进行的跨国审查突出表明,需要采取更具包容性和参与性的方法来实现医学数字化转型。最后,紧急情况下的强制医疗干预,如电痉挛疗法(ECT)的法律和伦理影响,揭示了自主与慈善原则之间的冲突。这一案例分析清楚地提醒人们,保护患者权利和确保患者健康之间的微妙平衡。综上所述,本期的文章对新兴医疗技术带来的伦理困境进行了全面而发人深省的审视。他们强调需要一种多学科的方法——包括伦理、法律、医学和政策——来应对未来的挑战。通过参与这些讨论,我们希望为一个更加道德健全和以患者为中心的医学未来做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信