Relational Ethics in the Administration of Healthcare Technology: AI, Automation and Proper Distance.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Frances Shaw, Anthony McCosker
{"title":"Relational Ethics in the Administration of Healthcare Technology: AI, Automation and Proper Distance.","authors":"Frances Shaw, Anthony McCosker","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.70055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automation and AI-driven decision support systems are increasingly reshaping healthcare, particularly in diagnostic and clinical management contexts. Although their potential to enhance access, efficiency and personalisation is widely recognised, there remain ethical concerns especially around the shifting dynamics of healthcare relationships. This article proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the relational ethics of healthcare automation, drawing on the work of Levinas and Silverstone to interrogate the ethical implications embedded in regulatory processes. Focusing on the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) database, we analyse clinical decision support system (CDSS) approvals to examine how healthcare relationships are discursively constructed within regulatory documentation. Through close reading of these technical and administrative texts, we investigate how ethical concerns such as patient autonomy, informed consent and trust are acknowledged or elided. Our findings reveal a limited framing of relational dimensions in regulatory discourse, raising important questions about how ethics are operationalised in the oversight of automated systems. By making visible the administrative practices shaping healthcare automation, this study contributes to emerging debates on AI governance and the ethical integration of automation into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":"47 5","pages":"e70055"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12173213/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.70055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Automation and AI-driven decision support systems are increasingly reshaping healthcare, particularly in diagnostic and clinical management contexts. Although their potential to enhance access, efficiency and personalisation is widely recognised, there remain ethical concerns especially around the shifting dynamics of healthcare relationships. This article proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the relational ethics of healthcare automation, drawing on the work of Levinas and Silverstone to interrogate the ethical implications embedded in regulatory processes. Focusing on the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) database, we analyse clinical decision support system (CDSS) approvals to examine how healthcare relationships are discursively constructed within regulatory documentation. Through close reading of these technical and administrative texts, we investigate how ethical concerns such as patient autonomy, informed consent and trust are acknowledged or elided. Our findings reveal a limited framing of relational dimensions in regulatory discourse, raising important questions about how ethics are operationalised in the oversight of automated systems. By making visible the administrative practices shaping healthcare automation, this study contributes to emerging debates on AI governance and the ethical integration of automation into clinical practice.

医疗技术管理中的关系伦理:人工智能、自动化和适当距离。
自动化和人工智能驱动的决策支持系统正在日益重塑医疗保健,特别是在诊断和临床管理环境中。尽管它们在提高获取、效率和个性化方面的潜力得到了广泛认可,但仍然存在伦理问题,特别是围绕医疗保健关系的动态变化。本文提出了一个概念框架,用于理解医疗保健自动化的关系伦理,借鉴了Levinas和Silverstone的工作,以询问嵌入监管过程中的伦理含义。重点关注澳大利亚药品管理局(TGA)数据库,我们分析临床决策支持系统(CDSS)批准,以检查医疗保健关系是如何在监管文件中话语构建的。通过仔细阅读这些技术和管理文本,我们调查如何伦理问题,如病人的自主权,知情同意和信任被承认或省略。我们的研究结果揭示了监管话语中关系维度的有限框架,提出了关于道德如何在自动化系统的监督中运作的重要问题。通过使塑造医疗保健自动化的行政实践可见,本研究有助于对人工智能治理和自动化与临床实践的道德整合的新兴辩论。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Sociology of Health & Illness is an international journal which publishes sociological articles on all aspects of health, illness, medicine and health care. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions in this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信