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


Journal

Yearbook of medical informatics
ISSN: 2364-0502
Titre abrégé: Yearb Med Inform
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9312666

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 3 6 2022
medline: 7 12 2022
entrez: 2 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 OBJECTIVE
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 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 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35654428
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1742491
pmc: PMC9719784
doi:

Types de publication

Review Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

317-322

Informations de copyright

IMIA and Thieme. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Références

N Engl J Med. 1982 Aug 19;307(8):468-76
pubmed: 7048091
Methods Inf Med. 2006;45(5):474-82
pubmed: 17019500
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Mar 17;4(1):52
pubmed: 33731887
Comput Biomed Res. 1983 Jun;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 6347509
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 01;24(2):423-431
pubmed: 27516495
Nurs Adm Q. 2005 Oct-Dec;29(4):349-52
pubmed: 16261000
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:84-93
pubmed: 24355978
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):2-5
pubmed: 22116642
Mo Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;112(1):53-7
pubmed: 25812276
Science. 1959 Jul 3;130(3366):9-21
pubmed: 13668531
Methods Inf Med. 1965 Jun;4(2):71-4
pubmed: 5829292
Front Digit Health. 2021 Sep 23;3:725088
pubmed: 34713196
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Oct 1;29(Supplement_3):13-17
pubmed: 31738443
Yearb Med Inform. 2021 Aug;30(1):290-301
pubmed: 33882592
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Feb 1;27(2):330-340
pubmed: 31599936
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):246-250
pubmed: 28011595
Yearb Med Inform. 2019 Aug;28(1):249-256
pubmed: 31022744
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2016 Jun 03;4:43
pubmed: 27376058
Lancet Digit Health. 2021 Nov;3(11):e745-e750
pubmed: 34711379
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021 Oct;28(1):
pubmed: 34615665
BMC Public Health. 2021 Nov 17;21(1):2106
pubmed: 34789206
Yearb Med Inform. 2014 Aug 15;9:3-5
pubmed: 25123715
JAMA. 1961 Jul 22;177:177-83
pubmed: 13783190
Comput Biomed Res. 1968 May;1(5):490-507
pubmed: 5696985

Auteurs

Casimir A Kulikowski (CA)

Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH