Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.

IF 2.4 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Wenke Liedtke, Martin Langanke
{"title":"Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.","authors":"Wenke Liedtke, Martin Langanke","doi":"10.1186/s13010-026-00226-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The increasing integration of artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) has fueled expectations of more personalized and effective diagnostics and therapies. By incorporating machine learning methods, AI-CDSS promise enhanced predictive accuracy, improved stratification, and innovative individualized care. However, this technological optimism is accompanied by complex ethical challenges, including issues of explainability, trust, autonomy, and data security. At the core of these debates lies the question of responsibility, which involves both its attribution and diffusion, as well as the underlying normative standards guiding moral action. In the context of healthcare practice, responsibility is further complicated by moral diversity-the coexistence of varying moral values, cultural beliefs, and ethical frameworks among healthcare professionals, patients, and institutional stakeholders. This plurality challenges the establishment of a unified normative standard necessary for ethically sound responsibility attribution. This paper offers an analysis of moral diversity and AI-CDSS as a challenge for responsibility in healthcare environments. Using a relational concept of responsibility the study examines key areas in which moral diversity affects responsibility in AI-mediated decision-making. This includes algorithmic bias, healthcare professional and patient interaction and the role of patients. Through these examples, the paper explains how different normative standards intensify ethical complexity in AI-supported clinical contexts. It argues that greater ethical sensitivity to moral diversity is essential-both in the development of AI-CDSS and in their application within morally value-laden healthcare situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13321450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-026-00226-1","RegionNum":4,"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 increasing integration of artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) has fueled expectations of more personalized and effective diagnostics and therapies. By incorporating machine learning methods, AI-CDSS promise enhanced predictive accuracy, improved stratification, and innovative individualized care. However, this technological optimism is accompanied by complex ethical challenges, including issues of explainability, trust, autonomy, and data security. At the core of these debates lies the question of responsibility, which involves both its attribution and diffusion, as well as the underlying normative standards guiding moral action. In the context of healthcare practice, responsibility is further complicated by moral diversity-the coexistence of varying moral values, cultural beliefs, and ethical frameworks among healthcare professionals, patients, and institutional stakeholders. This plurality challenges the establishment of a unified normative standard necessary for ethically sound responsibility attribution. This paper offers an analysis of moral diversity and AI-CDSS as a challenge for responsibility in healthcare environments. Using a relational concept of responsibility the study examines key areas in which moral diversity affects responsibility in AI-mediated decision-making. This includes algorithmic bias, healthcare professional and patient interaction and the role of patients. Through these examples, the paper explains how different normative standards intensify ethical complexity in AI-supported clinical contexts. It argues that greater ethical sensitivity to moral diversity is essential-both in the development of AI-CDSS and in their application within morally value-laden healthcare situations.

AI-CDSS中的道德多样性和责任挑战。
人工智能在临床决策支持系统(AI-CDSS)中的日益整合,激发了人们对更加个性化和有效的诊断和治疗的期望。通过结合机器学习方法,AI-CDSS有望提高预测准确性,改善分层和创新的个性化护理。然而,这种技术乐观主义伴随着复杂的伦理挑战,包括可解释性、信任、自主性和数据安全等问题。这些争论的核心是责任问题,它涉及责任的归属和扩散,以及指导道德行为的基本规范标准。在医疗保健实践的背景下,道德多样性使责任进一步复杂化——在医疗保健专业人员、患者和机构利益相关者之间共存着不同的道德价值观、文化信仰和道德框架。这种多元性挑战了建立一个统一的规范标准,这是道德上健全的责任归属所必需的。本文分析了道德多样性和AI-CDSS作为医疗保健环境中责任的挑战。使用责任的关系概念,该研究考察了道德多样性影响人工智能介导决策责任的关键领域。这包括算法偏差、医疗保健专业人员和患者的互动以及患者的角色。通过这些例子,本文解释了不同的规范标准如何在人工智能支持的临床环境中加剧伦理复杂性。它认为,无论是在人工智能- cdss的发展中,还是在道德价值高的医疗保健情况下的应用中,对道德多样性更大的伦理敏感性都是至关重要的。
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
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
×
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
小红书