AI in medicine: recommendations for social and humanitarian expertise
https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-51-63
Abstract
The article presents specific recommendations for the examination of AI systems in medicine developed by the authors. The recommendations based on the problems, risks and limitations of the use of AI identified in scientific and philosophical publications of 2019-2022. It is proposed to carry out ethical expertise of projects of medical AI, by analogy with the review of projects of experimental activities in biomedicine; to conduct an ethical review of AI systems at the stage of preparation for their development followed by monitoring the testing of the created system; to focus on bioethical principles during the examination of AI systems for medical purposes.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: This research has been supported by the Interdisciplinary Scientific and Educational School of Moscow University «Brain, Cognitive Systems, Artificial Intelligence».
About the Authors
E. V. Bryzgalina
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Bryzgalina Elena Vladimirovna, Candidate of Philosophical Science, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy of Education, Faculty of Philosophy
Moscow
A. N. Gumarova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gumarova Anastasiya Nikolaevna, postgraduate student, Department of Philosophy of Education, Faculty of Philosophy
Moscow
E. M. Shkomova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Shkomova Ekaterina Mikhailovna, Candidate of Philosophical Science, assistant, Department of Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy
Moscow
References
1. Beauchamp T. L., Childress J. F. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 1994. 546 pp.
2. Bryzgalina E. V., Kiselev V. N. Rol sotsialno-gumanitarnoi ekspertizy v obespechenii nauchnogo liderstva Rossiiskoi Federatsii // The Digital Scholar: Philosopher‘s Lab. Tsifrovoi uchenyi: laboratoriya filosofa. 2021. T. 4. No 3. S.44–65.
3. Grebenshchikova E. G. Etika kak upravleniye // Sibirskiy filosofskiy zhurnal. 2018. T. 16. No 4. Р. 135–146.
4. Grebenshchikova E. G., Chuchalin A. G. Bioetika v ХХI veke: vyzovy i perspektivy//Meditsinskaya etika. 2021. S. 10–15.
5. Grebenshchikova E. G., Tishchenko P. D. Otsifrovannoe budushchee meditsiny: vyzovy dlya bioetiki // Filosofskie nauki. 2020. T. 63. No 2. S. 83–103.
6. Grebenshchikova E. G., Tishchenko P. D. Bioeticheskie vyzovy iskusstvennogo intellekta v khirurgii // Klinicheskaya i eksperimentalnaya khirurgiya. 2021. T. 9. No 3. S. 7–15.
7. Manzeschke A., Niederlag W. Ethische Perspektiven auf Biomedizinische Technologie. Walter de Gruyter, 2020.
8. Martin G., Ghafur S., Cingolani I. et al. The effects and preventability of 2627 patient safety incidents related to health information technology failures: a retrospective analysis of 10 years of incident reporting in England and Wales // The Lancet Digital Health. 2019. Vol. 1. Pp. 127–135.
9. Ploug T., Holm S. The right to refuse diagnostics and treatment planning by artificial intelligence // Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2020. T. 23. No 1. P. 107–114.
10. Ursin F., Timmermann C., Steger F. Explicability of artificial intelligence in radiology: Is a fifth bioethical principle conceptually necessary? // Bioethics. 2022. Vol. 36. No 2. P. 143–153.
11. Wynants L., Van Calster B., Collins G. S. et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal // British Medical Journal. 2020. No 369. M1328.
Review
For citations:
Bryzgalina E.V., Gumarova A.N., Shkomova E.M. AI in medicine: recommendations for social and humanitarian expertise. Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2023;21(1):51-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-51-63
Views:
560
Email this article 