Potentially Perilous Preference Parrots: Why Digital Twins Do Not Respect Patient Autonomy

Starke, Georg; Jox, Ralf J.

doi:10.1080/15265161.2024.2353810

The American Journal of Bioethics

2024

DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2024.2353810

|View full text |Cite

Potentially Perilous Preference Parrots: Why Digital Twins Do Not Respect Patient Autonomy

Georg Starke,

Ralf J. Jox

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

It is not about autonomy: realigning the ethical debate on substitute judgement and AI preference predictors in healthcare

Annoni

2024

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges two dominant assumptions in the current ethical debate over the use of algorithmic Personalised Patient Preference Predictors (P4) in substitute judgement for incapacitated patients. First, I question the belief that the autonomy of a patient who no longer has decision-making capacity can be meaningfully respected through a P4-empowered substitute judgement. Second, I critique the assumption that respect for autonomy can be reduced to merely satisfying a patient’s individual treatment preferences. Both assumptions, I argue, are problematic: respect for autonomy cannot be equated with simply delivering the ‘right’ treatments, and expanding the normative scope of agency beyond first-person decisions creates issues for standard clinical decision-making. I suggest, instead, that the development of these algorithmic tools can be justified by achieving other moral goods, such as honouring a patient’s unique identity or reducing surrogate decision-makers’ burdens. This conclusion, I argue, should reshape the ethical debate around not just the future development and use of P4-like systems, but also on how substitute judgement is currently understood and justified in clinical medicine.

show abstract

It is not about autonomy: realigning the ethical debate on substitute judgement and AI preference predictors in healthcare

Annoni

2024

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Potentially Perilous Preference Parrots: Why Digital Twins Do Not Respect Patient Autonomy

Cited by 1 publication

References 9 publications

It is not about autonomy: realigning the ethical debate on substitute judgement and AI preference predictors in healthcare

It is not about autonomy: realigning the ethical debate on substitute judgement and AI preference predictors in healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About