Diffused responsibility: attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems

Abstract

Good decision-making is a complex endeavor, and particularly so in a health context. The possibilities for day-to-day clinical practice opened up by AI-driven clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) give rise to fundamental questions around responsibility. In causal, moral and legal terms the application of AI-CDSS is challenging existing attributions of responsibility. In this context, responsibility gaps are often identified as main problem. Mapping out the changing dynamics and levels of attributing responsibility, we argue in this article that the application of AI-CDSS causes diffusions of responsibility with respect to a causal, moral, and legal dimension. Responsibility diffusion describes the situation where multiple options and several agents can be considered for attributing responsibility. Using the example of an AI-driven ‘digital tumor board’, we illustrate how clinical decision-making is changed and diffusions of responsibility take place. Not denying or attempting to bridge responsibility gaps, we argue that dynamics and ambivalences are inherent in responsibility, which is based on normative considerations such as avoiding experiences of disregard and vulnerability of human life, which are inherently accompanied by a moment of uncertainty, and is characterized by revision openness. Against this background and to avoid responsibility gaps, the article concludes with suggestions for managing responsibility diffusions in clinical decision-making with AI-CDSS.

Critical Age Theory: Institutional Abuse of Older People in Health Care

“…Rationalizations are mental strategies that allow healthcare workers to justify their behavior and reduce their concerns in a process of diffusion of responsibility. This diffusion of responsibility will exacerbate this lack of concern once artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in the healthcare setting [138]. Diffusion of responsibility shields the role of the healthcare facility and its management.…”

Meaningful Human Control over AI for Health? A Review

“…At this point, it is important to return to the first point: the use and application of automated systems in medical contexts take place in specific contexts for which there are already established rules and procedures. 37 For example, if an automated system is used for a specific part of medical decision-making, there are already institutionally established procedures for this decisionmaking, harm mitigation bodies, 10 rules for liability in decisionmaking and, last but not least, a medical ethics framework. 38 The crucial point here is that the existing institutional framework settings already define the minimum requirements for control that different actors such as clinicians, patients, caregivers, relatives and others can claim as entitlements and rights that have already been conceded.…”

Reflections on Putting AI Ethics into Practice: How Three AI Ethics Approaches Conceptualize Theory and Practice

“…The shift from an (individual-) rights-oriented governance to a risk-based AI governance has direct consequences on how far specific needs of persons with incapacities can be considered or not, for instance. The moment ethical principles such as vulnerability (Bleher & Braun, 2022 ; Braun, 2020 ) or justice (Braun & Hummel, 2022 ; Braun et al 2021 ) are justified as normatively central, the evaluation of primarily risk-based governance of AI systems also changes.…”