Why applied AI ethics in healthcare requires the integration of empirical inquiry and normative ethical analysis

Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist
{"title":"Why applied AI ethics in healthcare requires the integration of empirical inquiry and normative ethical analysis","authors":"Jennifer Viberg Johansson,&nbsp;Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist","doi":"10.1007/s43681-026-01370-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>AI technologies in healthcare are increasingly subject to ethical scrutiny, often structured around high‑level ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability. While these principles are widely endorsed, their application frequently remains abstract, underspecified, and detached from the empirical contexts in which AI systems are developed and used. This paper argues that empirical ethics provides a necessary foundation for applied AI ethics in healthcare by enabling the ethically relevant contextualisation of normative principles through a reciprocal relationship between empirical and normative ethical analysis. In doing so, the paper addresses a persistent gap between ethical principles and empirical research in AI ethics by showing how these domains can be methodologically integrated rather than treated as separate or sequential. Drawing on empirical examples and our own experience from medical AI research and stakeholder engagement, we illustrate how empirical inquiry and normative ethical analysis, can work together to clarify the meaning of ethical values such as fairness, identify ethically salient risks and trade‑offs, and support ethically robust decision‑making across the AI lifecycle, including research, development, and procurement. We argue that without systematic and methodologically grounded empirical engagement, AI ethics risks becoming either toothless or merely procedural, or sliding into forms of ethical relativism in which empirical findings are treated as normatively sufficient. The article contributes to ongoing debates on how to operationalise AI ethics and highlights the role that empirical ethics can play in bridging ethical theory, law, and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"6 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-026-01370-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-026-01370-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AI technologies in healthcare are increasingly subject to ethical scrutiny, often structured around high‑level ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability. While these principles are widely endorsed, their application frequently remains abstract, underspecified, and detached from the empirical contexts in which AI systems are developed and used. This paper argues that empirical ethics provides a necessary foundation for applied AI ethics in healthcare by enabling the ethically relevant contextualisation of normative principles through a reciprocal relationship between empirical and normative ethical analysis. In doing so, the paper addresses a persistent gap between ethical principles and empirical research in AI ethics by showing how these domains can be methodologically integrated rather than treated as separate or sequential. Drawing on empirical examples and our own experience from medical AI research and stakeholder engagement, we illustrate how empirical inquiry and normative ethical analysis, can work together to clarify the meaning of ethical values such as fairness, identify ethically salient risks and trade‑offs, and support ethically robust decision‑making across the AI lifecycle, including research, development, and procurement. We argue that without systematic and methodologically grounded empirical engagement, AI ethics risks becoming either toothless or merely procedural, or sliding into forms of ethical relativism in which empirical findings are treated as normatively sufficient. The article contributes to ongoing debates on how to operationalise AI ethics and highlights the role that empirical ethics can play in bridging ethical theory, law, and practice.

为什么在医疗保健中应用人工智能伦理需要整合实证调查和规范伦理分析
医疗保健领域的人工智能技术越来越多地受到道德审查,这些审查通常围绕公平、透明和问责制等高级道德原则进行。虽然这些原则得到了广泛的认可,但它们的应用往往是抽象的、不明确的,并且与人工智能系统开发和使用的经验背景脱节。本文认为,经验伦理通过经验和规范伦理分析之间的相互关系,使规范原则的伦理相关语境化,为在医疗保健中应用人工智能伦理提供了必要的基础。在这样做的过程中,本文通过展示如何在方法上整合这些领域,而不是将其视为单独或连续的,解决了人工智能伦理中伦理原则与实证研究之间的持续差距。根据经验例子和我们自己在医疗人工智能研究和利益相关者参与方面的经验,我们说明了经验调查和规范伦理分析如何协同工作,以澄清公平等道德价值观的含义,识别道德上显著的风险和权衡,并支持整个人工智能生命周期(包括研究、开发和采购)的道德稳健决策。我们认为,如果没有系统的、以方法为基础的经验参与,人工智能伦理就有可能变得没有作用或仅仅是程序性的,或者滑入道德相对主义的形式,在这种形式中,经验发现被视为规范充分。这篇文章为正在进行的关于如何实施人工智能伦理的辩论做出了贡献,并强调了经验伦理学在连接伦理理论、法律和实践方面可以发挥的作用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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