Ethics in the History of Medical Informatics for Decision-Making: Early Challenges to Digital Health Goals

C. Kulikowski
{"title":"Ethics in the History of Medical Informatics for Decision-Making: Early Challenges to Digital Health Goals","authors":"C. Kulikowski","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1742491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary Background : Inclusive digital health prioritizes public engagement through digital literacies and internet/web connectivity for advancing and scaling healthcare equitably by informatics technologies. This is badly needed, largely desirable and uncontroversial. However, historically, medical and healthcare practices and their informatics processes assume that individual clinical encounters between practitioners and patients are the indispensable foundation of clinical practice. This assumption has been dramatically challenged by expansion of digital technologies, their interconnectable mobility, virtuality, surveillance informatics, and the vastness of data repositories for individuals and populations that enable and support them. This article is a brief historical commentary emphasizing critical ethical issues about decisions in clinical interactions or encounters raised in the early days of the field. These questions, raised eloquently by François Grémy in 1985, have become urgently relevant to the equity/fairness, inclusivity and unbiasedness desired of today's pervasive digital health systems. Objectives : The main goal of this article is to highlight how the personal freedoms of choice, values, and responsibilities arising in relationships between physicians and healthcare practitioners and their patients in the clinical encounter can be distorted by digital health technologies which focus more on efficiency, productivity, and scalability of healthcare processes. Understanding the promise and limitations of early and current decision-support systems and the analytics of community or population data can help place into historical context the often exaggerated claims made today about Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning “solving” clinical problems with algorithms and data, downplaying the role of the clinical judgments and responsibilities inherent in personal clinical encounters. Methods : A review of selected early articles in medical informatics is related to current literature on the ethical issues and technological inadequacies involved in the design and implementation of clinical systems for decision-making. Early insights and cautions about the development of decision support technologies raised questions about the ethical responsibilities in clinical encounters where freedom of personal choice can be so easily limited through the constraints from information processing and reliance on prior expertise frequently driven more by administrative rather than clinical objectives. These anticipated many of the deeper ethical problems that have arisen since then in clinical informatics. Conclusions : Early papers on ethics in clinical decision-making provide prescient commentary on the dangers of not taking into account the complexities of individual human decision making in clinical encounters. These include the excessive reliance on data and experts, and oversimplified models of human reasoning, all of which persist and have become amplified today as urgent questions about how inclusivity, equity, and bias are handled in practical systems where ethical responsibilities of individuals patients and practitioners intertwine with those of groups within professional or other communities, and are central to how clinical encounters evolve in our digital health future.","PeriodicalId":40027,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of medical informatics","volume":"20 1","pages":"317 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of medical informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Summary Background : Inclusive digital health prioritizes public engagement through digital literacies and internet/web connectivity for advancing and scaling healthcare equitably by informatics technologies. This is badly needed, largely desirable and uncontroversial. However, historically, medical and healthcare practices and their informatics processes assume that individual clinical encounters between practitioners and patients are the indispensable foundation of clinical practice. This assumption has been dramatically challenged by expansion of digital technologies, their interconnectable mobility, virtuality, surveillance informatics, and the vastness of data repositories for individuals and populations that enable and support them. This article is a brief historical commentary emphasizing critical ethical issues about decisions in clinical interactions or encounters raised in the early days of the field. These questions, raised eloquently by François Grémy in 1985, have become urgently relevant to the equity/fairness, inclusivity and unbiasedness desired of today's pervasive digital health systems. Objectives : The main goal of this article is to highlight how the personal freedoms of choice, values, and responsibilities arising in relationships between physicians and healthcare practitioners and their patients in the clinical encounter can be distorted by digital health technologies which focus more on efficiency, productivity, and scalability of healthcare processes. Understanding the promise and limitations of early and current decision-support systems and the analytics of community or population data can help place into historical context the often exaggerated claims made today about Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning “solving” clinical problems with algorithms and data, downplaying the role of the clinical judgments and responsibilities inherent in personal clinical encounters. Methods : A review of selected early articles in medical informatics is related to current literature on the ethical issues and technological inadequacies involved in the design and implementation of clinical systems for decision-making. Early insights and cautions about the development of decision support technologies raised questions about the ethical responsibilities in clinical encounters where freedom of personal choice can be so easily limited through the constraints from information processing and reliance on prior expertise frequently driven more by administrative rather than clinical objectives. These anticipated many of the deeper ethical problems that have arisen since then in clinical informatics. Conclusions : Early papers on ethics in clinical decision-making provide prescient commentary on the dangers of not taking into account the complexities of individual human decision making in clinical encounters. These include the excessive reliance on data and experts, and oversimplified models of human reasoning, all of which persist and have become amplified today as urgent questions about how inclusivity, equity, and bias are handled in practical systems where ethical responsibilities of individuals patients and practitioners intertwine with those of groups within professional or other communities, and are central to how clinical encounters evolve in our digital health future.
决策医学信息学史上的伦理学:对数字健康目标的早期挑战
背景:包容性数字卫生优先考虑通过数字素养和互联网/网络连接进行公众参与,从而通过信息技术公平地推进和扩大医疗保健。这是迫切需要的,在很大程度上是可取的,而且没有争议。然而,从历史上看,医疗和保健实践及其信息学过程假设从业人员和患者之间的个人临床接触是临床实践不可或缺的基础。数字技术的扩展、它们的互联移动性、虚拟性、监控信息学以及为个人和人群提供支持和支持的庞大数据存储库,极大地挑战了这一假设。这篇文章是一个简短的历史评论,强调在临床相互作用或遇到的决定的关键伦理问题,在该领域的早期提出。这些问题是弗朗索瓦·格莱姆在1985年雄辩地提出的,与当今无处不在的数字卫生系统所期望的公平/公平、包容和公正迫切相关。目标:本文的主要目标是强调在临床遇到的医生、医疗保健从业人员及其患者之间的关系中产生的个人选择自由、价值观和责任是如何被数字医疗技术扭曲的,数字医疗技术更关注医疗保健流程的效率、生产力和可扩展性。了解早期和当前决策支持系统的前景和局限性,以及对社区或人口数据的分析,可以帮助我们将今天关于人工智能和机器学习用算法和数据“解决”临床问题的说法置于历史背景中,低估临床判断的作用和个人临床接触中固有的责任。方法:回顾医学信息学中选定的早期文章,涉及临床决策系统设计和实施中的伦理问题和技术不足的当前文献。关于决策支持技术发展的早期见解和警告提出了关于临床接触中的伦理责任的问题,在这种情况下,个人选择的自由很容易受到信息处理的限制和依赖先前的专业知识的限制,这些限制往往更多地是由行政而不是临床目标驱动的。这些预测了自那时以来在临床信息学中出现的许多更深层次的伦理问题。结论:早期关于临床决策中的伦理问题的论文提供了先见之明的评论,说明了在临床遭遇中不考虑个人决策复杂性的危险。这些问题包括过度依赖数据和专家,以及过度简化的人类推理模型,所有这些问题都存在并在今天被放大,因为在实际系统中,个体患者和从业人员的道德责任与专业或其他社区内的团体的道德责任交织在一起,这是临床遭遇如何在我们的数字健康未来发展的核心问题,因此如何处理包容性,公平性和偏见。
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
Yearbook of medical informatics
Yearbook of medical informatics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Published by the International Medical Informatics Association, this annual publication includes the best papers in medical informatics from around the world.
×
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