Search

Artificially intelligent systems (AISs) are being created by software developing companies (SDCs) to influence clinical decision‐making. Historically, clinicians have led healthcare decision‐making, and the introduction of AISs makes SDCs novel actors in the clinical decision‐making space. Although these AISs are intended to influence a clinician's decision‐making, SDCs have been clear that clinicians are in fact the final decision‐makers in clinical care, and that AISs can only inform their decisions. As such, the default position is that clinicians should hold responsibility for the outcomes of the use of AISs. This is not the case when an AIS has influenced a clinician's judgement and their subsequent decision. In this paper, we argue that this is an imbalanced and unjust position, and that careful thought needs to go into how personal moral responsibility for the use of AISs in clinical decision‐making should be attributed. This paper employs and examines the difference between prospective and retrospective responsibility and considers foreseeability as key in determining how personal moral responsibility can be justly attributed. This leads us to the view that moral responsibility for the outcomes of using AISs in healthcare ought to be shared by the clinical users and SDCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01809.x Byline: JONATHAN IVES (1), MICHAEL DUNN (2) Keywords: bioethics; reflexivity; critical bioethics; empirical bioethics; moral intuition; moral assumption Abstract: ABSTRACT In this paper we set forth what we believe to be a relatively controversial argument, claiming that 'bioethics' needs to undergo a fundamental change in the way it is practised. This change, we argue, requires philosophical bioethicists to adopt reflexive practices when applying their analyses in public forums, acknowledging openly that bioethics is an embedded socio-cultural practice, shaped by the ever-changing intuitions of individual philosophers, which cannot be viewed as a detached intellectual endeavour. This said, we argue that in order to manage the personal, social and cultural embeddedness of bioethics, philosophical bioethicists should openly acknowledge how their practices are constructed and should, in their writing, explicitly deal with issues of bias and conflict of interest, just as empirical scientists are required to do. Author Affiliation: (1)School of Health and Population Sciences, the University of Birmingham (2)Ethox Centre, University of Oxford Article note: Dr Jonathan Ives, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Primary Care Clinical Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. Email: j.c.ives@bham.ac.uk

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01715.x Byline: JONATHAN IVES (1), HEATHER DRAPER (1) Keywords: empirical bioethics; methodology; integrated ethics; Is/ought problem; normative policy orientated bioethics; focus groups; reflective equilibrium Abstract: ABSTRACT In this article we distinguish between philosophical bioethics (PB), descriptive policy orientated bioethics (DPOB) and normative policy oriented bioethics (NPOB). We argue that finding an appropriate methodology for combining empirical data and moral theory depends on what the aims of the research endeavour are, and that, for the most part, this combination is only required for NPOB. After briefly discussing the debate around the is/ought problem, and suggesting that both sides of this debate are misunderstanding one another (i.e. one side treats it as a conceptual problem, whilst the other treats it as an empirical claim), we outline and defend a methodological approach to NPOB based on work we have carried out on a project exploring the normative foundations of paternal rights and responsibilities. We suggest that given the prominent role already played by moral intuition in moral theory, one appropriate way to integrate empirical data and philosophical bioethics is to utilize empirically gathered lay intuition as the foundation for ethical reasoning in NPOB. The method we propose involves a modification of a long-established tradition on non-intervention in qualitative data gathering, combined with a form of reflective equilibrium where the demands of theory and data are given equal weight and a pragmatic compromise reached. Author Affiliation: (1)Centre for Biomedical Ethics, The University of Birmingham Article note: Dr Jonathan Ives, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Primary Care Clinical Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT. j.c.ives@bham.ac.uk

There has been increasing debate in recent years about the conceptualization of moral distress. Broadly speaking, two groups of scholars have emerged: those who agree with Jameton's 'narrow definition' that focuses on constraint and those who argue that Jameton's definition is insufficient and needs to be broadened. Using feminist empirical bioethics, we interviewed critical care nurses in the United Kingdom about their experiences and conceptualizations of moral distress. We provide our broader definition of moral distress and examples of data that both challenge and support our conceptualization. We pre‐empt and overcome three key challenges that could be levelled at our account and argue that there are good reasons to adopt our broader definition of moral distress when exploring prevalence of, and management strategies for, moral distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the convention of allocating donated gametes on a 'first come, first served' basis should be replaced with an allocation system that takes into account more morally relevant criteria than waiting time. This conclusion was developed using an empirical bioethics methodology, which involved a study of the views of 18 staff members from seven U.K. fertility clinics, and 20 academics, policy-makers, representatives of patient groups, and other relevant professionals, on the allocation of donated sperm and eggs. Against these views, we consider some nuanced ways of including criteria in a points allocation system. We argue that such a system is more ethically robust than 'first come, first served', but we acknowledge that our results suggest that a points system will meet with resistance from those working in the field. We conclude that criteria such as a patient's age, potentially damaging substance use, and parental status should be used to allocate points and determine which patients receive treatment and in what order. These and other factors should be applied according to how they bear on considerations like child welfare, patient welfare, and the effectiveness of the proposed treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]