Background Despite the bourgeoning of digital tools for bioethics research, education, and engagement, little research has empirically investigated the impact of interactive visualizations as a way to translate ethical frameworks and guidelines. To date, most frameworks take the format of text-only documents that outline and offer ethical guidance on specific contexts. This study’s goal was to determine whether an interactive-visual format supports frameworks in transferring ethical knowledge by improving learning, deliberation, and user experience.Methods An experimental comparative study was conducted with (...) a pre-, mid-, and post-test design using the online survey platform Qualtrics. Participants were university based early-stage health researchers who were randomly assigned to either the control condition (text-only document) or the experimental condition (interactive-visual). The primary outcome variables were learning, (measured using a questionnaire), deliberation (using cases studies) and user experience (measured using the SED/UD Scale). Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and mixed-effects linear regression.Results Of the 80 participants, 44 (55%) used the text-only document and 36 (45%) used the interactive-visual. Results of the knowledge-test scores showed a statistically significant difference between participants’ post-test scores, indicating that the interactive-visual format better supported understanding, acquisition, and application of the framework’s knowledge. Findings from the case studies showed both formats supported ethical deliberation. Results further indicated the interactive-visual provided an overall better episodic and remembered user experience compared with the text-only document.Conclusions Our findings show that ethical frameworks formatted with interactive and visual qualities provide a more pleasing user experience and are effective formats for ethics learning and deliberation. These findings have implications for practitioners developing and deploying ethical frameworks and guidelines (e.g., in educational or employee-onboarding settings), in that the knowledge generated can lead to more effective dissemination practices of normative guidelines and health data ethics concepts. (shrink)

This article raises the question of whether bioethics qualifies as a discipline. According to a standard definition of discipline as “a field of study following specific and well-established methodological rules” bioethics is not a specific discipline as there are no explicit “well-established methodological rules.” The article investigates whether the methodological rules can be implicit, and whether bioethics can follow specific methodological rules within subdisciplines or for specific tasks. As this does not appear to be the case, the article examines whether (...) bioethics’ adherence to specific quality criteria (instead of methodological rules) or pursuing of a common goal can make it qualify as a discipline. Unfortunately, the result is negative. Then, the article scrutinizes whether referring to bioethics institutions and professional qualifications can ascertain bioethics as a discipline. However, this makes the definition of bioethics circular. The article ends by admitting that bioethics can qualify as a discipline according to broader definitions of discipline, for example, as an “area of knowledge, research and education.” However, this would reduce bioethics’ potential for demarcation and identity-building. Thus, to consolidate the discipline of bioethics and increase its impact, we should explicate and elaborate on its methodology. (shrink)

Bioethics has developed approaches to address ethical issues in health care, similar to how technology ethics provides guidelines for ethical research on artificial intelligence, big data, and robotic applications. As these digital technologies are increasingly used in medicine, health care and public health, thus, it is plausible that the approaches of technology ethics have influenced bioethical research. Similar to the “empirical turn” in bioethics, which led to intense debates about appropriate moral theories, ethical frameworks and meta-ethics due to the increased (...) use of empirical methodologies from social sciences, the proliferation of health-related subtypes of technology ethics might have a comparable impact on current bioethical research. This systematic journal review analyses the reporting of ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods in argument-based research articles on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health that have been published in high-impact bioethics journals. We focus on articles reporting non-empirical research in original contributions. Our aim is to describe currently used methods for the ethical analysis of ethical issues regarding the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. We confine our analysis to non-empirical methods because empirical methods have been well-researched elsewhere. Finally, we discuss our findings against the background of established methods for health technology assessment, the lack of a typology for non-empirical methods as well as conceptual and methodical change in bioethics. Our descriptive results may serve as a starting point for reflecting on whether current ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods are appropriate to research ethical issues deriving from the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. (shrink)

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients. Methods A questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who (...) often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Results Participants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI’s ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS. Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist. Conclusions German physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions. (shrink)