The proposition that digital innovations can put people in charge of their health has been accompanied by prolific talk of empowerment. In this paper we consider ethical challenges and opportunities of trying to achieve justice and empowerment using digital health initiatives. The language of empowerment can misleadingly suggest that by using technology, people can control their health and take responsibility for health outcomes to a greater degree than is realistic or fair. Also, digital health empowerment often primarily reaches people who (...) already have high technological and health literacy, leaving others behind. We critically investigate whether the concept of health empowerment could be re-engineered to mean something different, namely the process of improving the health literacy and access of those who least possess it, in line with recent proposals for conceptual engineering in the service of justice. We settle on the weaker conclusion that underlying ethical values including justice should be used to interpret the existing concept of empowerment. To conclude, we take a high-level view of various strategies for achieving the ethical value associated with digital health empowerment. (shrink)

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies for self-monitoring health-relevant parameters such as heart frequency, sleeping patterns or exercise regimes aim at fostering healthy behavior change and increasing the individual users to promote and maintain their health. We argue that this aspect of mHealth supports healthism, the increasing shift from institutional responsibility for public health toward individual engagement in maintaining health as well as mitigating health risks. Moreover, this healthist paradigm leads to a shift from understanding health as the absence of illness to (...) regarding health as the performance of certain rituals in order to project healthiness. By drawing from the analogy between healthiness and traditional virtues, we evaluate the promises made by proponents of mHealth technologies for self-monitoring. We argue that the implementation and use of mHealth risk entrenching existing inequalities and, more particularly, tend to exclude populations situated at the losing end of those inequalities from participating in the quasi-virtue of healthiness. Consequently, the implementation and use of mHealth technologies not only present challenges for social justice but also undermine their primary societal goal—to promote public health. Finally, we offer several suggestions on how to realize the potential benefit of mHealth. (shrink)

It is a dominant dictum in ethics that ‘ought implies can’ (OIC): if an agent morally ought to do an action, the agent must be capable of performing that action. Yet, with current technological developments, such as in direct-to-consumer genomics, big data analytics and wearable technologies, there may be reasons to reorient this ethical principle. It is our modest aim in this article to explore how the current wave of allegedly disruptive innovation calls for a renewed interest for this dictum. (...) As an effect of prevention and prediction oriented technological innovation, an increased focus on assumedly controllable lifestyle risks may be anticipated. For lay people who might turn into patients, this may entail a reinforced behavior-based individual responsibilisation. Holding on to the OIC dictum, such responsibilisation seems to require that individuals can actually control what is framed as ‘lifestyle risks’ when there is not always a reliable consensus about what one should do. As such, reference to OIC may be mobilised in function of a political task of designing institutions so as to enable such choice and control. (shrink)

An enduring ethical dispute accompanies prenatal screening and testing (PST) technologies. This ethical debate focuses on notions of reproductive choice. On one side of the dispute are those who have supported PST as a way to empower women’s reproductive choice, while on the other side are those who argue that PST, particularly when made a routine part of prenatal care, limits deliberate choice. Empirical research does not resolve this ethical debate with evidence both of women for whom PST enhances their (...) choices but also persistent evidence of recurrent problems between PST and women’s autonomous decision-making. While there have been attempts to remove challenges to reproductive choice, it has been argued that these challenges cannot be removed entirely. In this paper I provide a historical review of PST technologies’ development and in doing so provide a detailed insight into the root causes of this tension between the opposing sides of this debate. This historical account provides evidence that those who championed the early use of these technologies did so in order to achieve a number of wholly different goals other than women’s choice and empowerment. These different aims focus on scientific discovery and eugenic goals and, I argue, areirreconcilablewith women’s choice and empowerment. It thus may not be surprising that the resulting practice of PST continues to resist compatibility with women’s choice and empowerment. Ultimately, by understanding the historical foundations of PST we can more effectively assess how toreconcilewomen’s reproductive autonomy with routine prenatal screening. (shrink)

AgeTech involves the use of emerging technologies to support the health, well-being and independent living of older adults. In this paper we focus on how AgeTech based on artificial intelligence (AI) may better support older adults to remain in their own living environment for longer, provide social connectedness, support wellbeing and mental health, and enable social participation. In order to assess and better understand the positive as well as negative outcomes of AI-based AgeTech, a critical analysis of ethical design, digital (...) equity, and policy pathways is required. A crucial question is how AI-based AgeTech may drive practical, equitable, and inclusive multilevel solutions to support healthy, active ageing. In our paper, we aim to show that a focus on equity is key for AI-based AgeTech if it is to realize its full potential. We propose that equity should not just be an extra benefit or minimum requirement, but the explicit aim of designing AI-based health tech. This means that social determinants that affect the use of or access to these technologies have to be addressed. We will explore how complexity management as a crucial element of AI-based AgeTech may potentially create and exacerbate social inequities by marginalising or ignoring social determinants. We identify bias, standardization, and access as main ethical issues in this context and subsequently, make recommendations as to how inequities that stem form AI-based AgeTech can be addressed. (shrink)

Autonomy is a core value that is deeply entrenched in the moral, legal, and political practices of many societies. The development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) have raised new questions about AI’s impacts on human autonomy. However, systematic assessments of these impacts are still rare and often held on a case-by-case basis. In this article, I provide a conceptual framework that both ties together seemingly disjoint issues about human autonomy, as well as highlights differences between them. In the first (...) part, I distinguish between distinct concerns that are currently addressed under the umbrella term ‘human autonomy’. In particular, I show how differentiating between autonomy-as-authenticity and autonomy-as-agency helps us to pinpoint separate challenges from AI deployment. Some of these challenges are already well-known (e.g. online manipulation or limitation of freedom), whereas others have received much less attention (e.g. adaptive preference formation). In the second part, I address the different roles AI systems can assume in the context of autonomy. In particular, I differentiate between AI systems taking on agential roles and AI systems being used as tools. I conclude that while there is no ‘silver bullet’ to address concerns about human autonomy, considering its various dimensions can help us to systematically address the associated risks. (shrink)

Technology corporations and the emerging digital health market are exerting increasing influence over the public healthcare agendas forming around the application of mobile medical devices. By promising quick and cost-effective technological solutions to complex healthcare problems, they are attracting the interest of funders, researchers, and policymakers. They are also shaping the public facing discourse, advancing an overwhelmingly positive narrative predicting the benefits of wearable medical devices to include personalised medicine, improved efficiency and quality of care, the empowering of under-resourced communities, (...) and delivery of health services previously unavailable to the citizens of developing countries. Typically techno-optimist in their description, the key barriers to this impending inflection point in healthcare are identified as technical issues such as short battery life and a lack of data protection. However, this tech innovation narrative is consistent with problematic ethical, social, and political assumptions that have practical and normative effects, and risk, one, undermining the real clinical potential of wearable devices and, two, designing social inequality and injustice into our mobile health interventions in global healthcare. I argue that the foundational assumptions dealing with the just distribution of healthcare ‘goods’, the individual as part of society, and the political framing of future healthcare policy devalue equity and despite what they promise cannot meet the distinctive needs of individuals and groups that do not conform to a standardised concept of care-receiver. (shrink)

Empowerment in healthcare is becoming increasingly popular, including in obstetrics, because of its benefits for both individual health and health promotion. Many authors and organizations, such as the World Health Organization, advocate it as a means of engaging communities in the adoption of health-promoting behaviors and fostering patient-centered care. It aims to enable patients to assert their decisions and choices while respecting their personal values. This desire to respect the uniqueness and autonomy of each individual echoes a number of ethical (...) principles and theories. In this article, the authors aim to answer the question, How can the concept of empowerment in healthcare contribute to bioethics? They argue that it has important links with feminist bioethics, notably the theory of relational autonomy, as well as with the capability theory of economist and philosopher Amartya Sen. (shrink)

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a host of ethical, legal, social, and political challenges involving various stakeholders. These challenges prompt various studies proposing frameworks and guidelines to tackle these issues, emphasizing distinct phases of AI development, deployment, and oversight. As a result, the notion of responsible AI has become widespread, incorporating ethical principles such as transparency, fairness, responsibility, and privacy. This paper explores the existing literature on AI use in healthcare to examine how it addresses, (...) defines, and discusses the concept of responsibility. We conducted a scoping review of literature related to AI responsibility in healthcare, searching databases and reference lists between January 2017 and January 2022 for terms related to “responsibility” and “AI in healthcare”, and their derivatives. Following screening, 136 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) the variety of terminology used to describe and address responsibility; (2) principles and concepts associated with responsibility; (3) stakeholders’ responsibilities in AI clinical development, use, and deployment; and (4) recommendations for addressing responsibility concerns. The results show the lack of a clear definition of AI responsibility in healthcare and highlight the importance of ensuring responsible development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Further research is necessary to clarify this notion to contribute to developing frameworks regarding the type of responsibility (ethical/moral/professional, legal, and causal) of various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle. (shrink)

Empowerment is a prominent ideal in health promotion. However, the exact meaning of this ideal is often not made explicit. In this paper, we outline an account of empowerment grounded in the human capacity to adapt and adjust to environmental and societal norms without being completely determined by those norms. Our account reveals a tension at the heart of empowerment between (a) the ability of self-governance and (b) the need to adapt and adjust to environmental and societal norms. We address (...) this tension by drawing from the work of Freud, Canguilhem, and Lacan. First, we clarify through a discussion of Freud’s notion of sublimation that it is difficult to assess empowerment independent of any social valuations, but also that it is no less problematic to make it dependent on social valuations alone. Second, we draw from the work of Canguilhem to show how empowerment can be understood in terms of the individual’s capacity to tolerate the aggressions of a multiplicity of environments. Third, using Lacan, we show how empowerment requires incorporation of social and symbolic norms, without necessarily rendering ourselves a mere product of these norms. Finally, we demonstrate how the views of these authors can complement one another, resulting in a more sophisticated understanding of empowerment. (shrink)

Research on mobile health (mHealth) applications has investigated how such technologies contribute to a responsibilisation of users/patients. This literature largely focuses on the individual responsibilities constructed by the apps and the neoliberal environments that enable the positioning of the user as responsible. With this focus, this scholarship is less attentive to the role of social relations in responsibilisation. In this article, I demonstrate how relational responsibilities are constructed in the communication of a North American self-testing app for “early changes in (...) cognition”. Through an analysis of qualitative expert interviews and images on the app’s web presence, I show how social relations are, in fact, mobilised in the construction of the responsibilities to support the user in the test situation, to take the test for the sake of others, and to make others take the test. Based on this analysis, I argue that the role of social relations should receive more attention in the literature on responsibilisation, because they lead to additional, sometimes gendered responsibilities that a focus on individual responsibilities would miss. (shrink)

Following the growing economic relevance of mobile health (mHealth) and the increasing global prevalence of dementia, self-testing apps for dementia and mild neurocognitive disorder (MCD) have been developed and advertised. The apps’ promise of a quick and easy tool has been criticized in the literature from a variety of angles, but as we argue in this article, the celebratory characterization of self-testing also stands in disbalance to the various kinds of fears that may be connected to taking the test. By (...) drawing on Sara Ahmed’s phenomenological theory on emotions and by referring to illustrative experiences from two users with a particular dementia self-testing app, we explore four dimensions of fear derived from phenomenology: performative, ontological, embodied, and temporal dimensions. We argue that fear (1) motivates one to take the self-test and to try to take control over one’s health; (2) is shaped by and shapes the ways in which we make sense of ourselves and others as cognitively deficient; (3) constructs and is constructed by our differently embodied presence in the world; and that (4) testing makes a fearful future self as cognitively deficient more tangible. In outlining these different dimensions of fear, this article expands the understanding of the meaning of experiencing self-testing in comparison to the mostly quantitative literature on this topic. (shrink)

The adoption of AI in the health sector has its share of benefits and harms to various stakeholder groups and entities. There are critical risks involved in using AI systems in the health domain; risks that can have severe, irreversible, and life-changing impacts on people’s lives. With the development of innovative AI-based applications in the medical and healthcare sectors, new types of risks emerge. To benefit from novel AI applications in this domain, the risks need to be managed in order (...) to protect the fundamental interests and rights of those affected. This will increase the level to which these systems become ethically acceptable, legally permissible, and socially sustainable. In this paper, we first discuss the necessity of AI risk management in the health domain from the ethical, legal, and societal perspectives. We then present a taxonomy of risks associated with the use of AI systems in the health domain called HART. HART mirrors the risks of a variety of different real-world incidents caused by use of AI in the health sector. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the taxonomy for different stakeholder groups and further research. (shrink)