Braun explores the use of digital twin technology in medicine with a particular emphasis on the question of how such simulations can represent a person.1 In defining some first conditions for ethically justifiable forms of representation of digital twins, he argues that digital twins do not threaten an embodied person, as long as that person retains control over their simulated representation via dynamic consent, and ideally with the option to choose both form and usage of the simulation. His thoughtful elaboration (...) provides insight into the challenges inherent in interactions between a person and their digital twin, emphasising the modes of control required to respect personal modes of freedom. This individual-centric approach to the question of representation leaves out the important ethical consideration of ensuring that all, not merely some, can be represented. Braun describes dynamic consent as a necessary mode of control, arguing that where a person is unable to give consent, ‘such simulations threaten to become illegitimate representations. They would then shift the kind of interaction from representation to illegitimate forms of prediction or surveillance and thereby could lead to infringements to individual modes of freedom.’ Consequently, the implementation of digital twin technology in healthcare would seem to exclude the most vulnerable members of society from participation in and benefiting from medical innovation, …. (shrink)

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, this June 2021 issue of the JME contains several articles addressing pandemic-related ethical issues, including, discrimination against persons with disabilities,1 collective moral resilience,2 and stress in medical students due to COVID-19.3 It also contains a critical appraisal of the most recent WHO guidance document on the management of ethical issues during an infectious disease outbreak.4 This June issue of JME also addresses several important clinical ethics issues: covert administration of medication in food,5 educational pelvic (...) exams under anesthesia,6 consent to cancer screening,7 care of critically ill newborns when the birth mother is unwell,8–10 and ethical considerations related to recruiting migrant workers for clinical trials.11 Perhaps what is most unique about this issue is its Feature …. (shrink)

In ‘Represent me: please! Towards an ethics of digital twins in medicine’,1 Braun analyses the potential for simulations of human organs and bodies, or ‘digital twins,’ to faithfully a person. Drawing from several French philosophers, he introduces ‘first conditions for digital twins to take on an ethically justifiable form of representation’.1 The analysis predominantly focuses on challenges that arise in terms of representation, embodiment, control by the patients after which the twin is modelled. Many challenges are posited on the existence (...) of digital twins as autonomous technologies capable of acting on behalf of the patient. One may be reasonably sceptical about the potential to achieve ‘digital twins’ in the near future; the author, to his credit, acknowledges this fact in the section ‘Simulating a precise efficacy’ while still providing a faithful overview of a nascent field of development. Given the state of development described in the paper, the risk of autonomous digital twins in the near future seems remote. There are two clear ethical risks of digital twin which, to my reading, deserve more attention than they receive in Braun’s analysis. Let us refer to these as the ‘near-term’ challenges of digital twins, in the sense that their significance does not turn on the degree of agency or embodiment of digital twins, but rather their mere existence and potential …. (shrink)

Digital twinning in medicine refers to the idea of simulating a person’s organs, muscles or perhaps their entire body, in order to arrive more effectively at accurate diagnoses, to make treatment recommendations that reflect chances of success and possible side-effects, and to better understand the long-term trajectory of an individual’s overall condition. Digital twins, in these ways, build on the recent movement toward personalised medicine,1 and they undoubtedly present us with exciting opportunities to advance our health. Of course, the opportunities (...) are accompanied by newfound challenges—a common refrain in discussions surrounding emerging technologies. In a recent article, Matthias Braun surveys numerous problems, including the precision of simulations, ownership and consent to the use of digital models, and issues of justice in assuring equitable access to novel medical systems.2 In particular, he places special emphasis on the notion of representation. According to Braun, proper representation naturally calls for correspondence—namely a precise model offering dynamic, real-time feedback as well as transparency, both for the patient and the practitioner, in terms of the data being employed. While technical challenges remain, these goals are quite clear and relatively uncontroversial. Where a host of questions arise, however, is in the discussion on the interaction between the represented persons and their simulations. Alongside questions regarding ownership of one’s digital twin, Braun raises the concern that ‘giving …. (shrink)

Matthias Braun’s1 concise reflections on the ethical challenges posed by digital twins in medicine are briefly supplemented below by a thought that, in my view, seems to run through the text like a thread, but whose ethical implications are not explicitly stated. Braun states in the final paragraph that ‘digital twins do not fundamentally threaten the embodied person’, at least not as long as the person in question has ‘control over her simulated representation’. I agree with this, but would like (...) to point out that it is not just the embodied person who has control. Regardless of whether the person embodied by the digital twin has permanent control over it, which enables them to revoke their agreed representation at any time, the company that developed or uses the digital twin also has control over it. The control of the company or companies and other involved parties lies in the fact that data and information are …. (shrink)

The concept of a digital twin comes from engineering.1 It refers to a digital model of an artefact in the real world, which takes data about the artefact itself, data about other such artefacts, among other things, as inputs. The idea is that the maintenance of artefacts—such as jet engines—can be vastly improved if we work with digital twins that simulate actual objects. Similarly, personalised medicine might benefit from the digital modelling of body parts or even whole human bodies. A (...) medical digital twin could use data about the patient, more general population data, and other inputs to generate predictions about the patient. This could lead to highly personalised interventions and nuanced judgments about the patient’s health. Matthias Braun2 discusses this intriguing prospect, asking how we should think about the way in which a digital twin could represent a patient. I will respond to Braun’s striking suggestion that we can regard a digital twin as an extension of the patient’s body. Notably, Braun does not compare his just-mentioned idea with the extended mind thesis popularised by Andy Clark and David Chalmers.3 But I am sure many readers will be reminded of the extended mind thesis. Accordingly, I will consider this comparison. I cannot discuss this comparison in detail, nor fully evaluate Braun’s suggestion. But I can say something about how we might approach this comparison, and provide some …. (shrink)

In his contribution, ‘Represent me: please! Towards an ethics of digital twins in medicine’1, Braun shows that there is a fundamental ambivalence inherent in digital twins: they can either open up new freedoms for the simulated persons, or, conversely, endanger and restrict their freedom. To prevent digital twins from restricting people’s freedom, Braun suggests a strong focus on control. Braun’s focus on control is insufficient, I will argue, because his idea of control works only retroactively: it can only react to (...) restrictions of freedom that have already occurred, but it cannot prevent them, nor can it restore any lost freedom. Control is therefore insufficient to defend people’s freedom. To prove my claim, I will first use an everyday example to illustrate the fundamental ambivalence inherent in digital twins. Second, I will show that digital twins endanger people’s freedom in a hermeneutic way. Finally, I will demonstrate why controllability cannot prevent this hermeneutic endangerment. I understand digital twins, like Braun, as simulation of a person, as their dynamic and precise effigy. Simulated twins use machine-learning and artificial intelligence capabilities to make predictive analyses about the simulated person and the future development of her health. Imagine: You are eating dinner. Meanwhile, your partner lectures you about the calorie density and nutrient composition of your food, warns you that your portion size exceeds your daily calorie requirement by x calories. It calculates how your dinner will negatively impact your body mass index and physical fitness, and predicts what the consequences will be for your overall health. Based on these data and predictions, it creates an individualised diet plan for you—and at the same time shows you by how much you could improve your vital values by sticking to that plan. This example helps to illustrate the fundamental …. (shrink)

It is very timely and highly important to think the relationship between theological and philosophical ethics. In this issue, Michael McCarthy et al. make a plea for a stronger dialogue...