AI and the need for justification (to the patient)

Ethics and Information Technology 26 (1):1-12 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper argues that one problem that besets black-box AI is that it lacks algorithmic justifiability. We argue that the norm of shared decision making in medical care presupposes that treatment decisions ought to be justifiable to the patient. Medical decisions are justifiable to the patient only if they are compatible with the patient’s values and preferences and the patient is able to see that this is so. Patient-directed justifiability is threatened by black-box AIs because the lack of rationale provided for the decision makes it difficult for patients to ascertain whether there is adequate fit between the decision and the patient’s values. This paper argues that achieving algorithmic transparency does not help patients bridge the gap between their medical decisions and values. We introduce a hypothetical model we call Justifiable AI to illustrate this argument. Justifiable AI aims at modelling normative and evaluative considerations in an explicit way so as to provide a stepping stone for patient and physician to jointly decide on a course of treatment. If our argument succeeds, we should prefer these justifiable models over alternatives if the former are available and aim to develop said models if not.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,963

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Instructions for authors.[author unknown] - 2002 - Ethics and Information Technology 4 (1):93-96.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (4):303-306.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2):151-154.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2003 - Ethics and Information Technology 5 (4):239-242.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1):87-90.
Instructions for Authors.[author unknown] - 2000 - Ethics and Information Technology 2 (4):257-260.
Editorial.[author unknown] - 2005 - Ethics and Information Technology 7 (2):49-49.
Governing (ir)responsibilities for future military AI systems.Liselotte Polderman - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (1):1-4.
The ethics of hacking. Ross W. Bellaby.Cécile Fabre - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (3):1-4.
The Ethics of AI in Human Resources.Evgeni Aizenberg & Matthew J. Dennis - 2022 - Ethics and Information Technology 24 (3):1-3.
Correction to: the Ethics of AI in Human Resources.Evgeni Aizenberg & Matthew J. Dennis - 2023 - Ethics and Information Technology 25 (1):1-1.
Eike-henner W. Kluge, the ethics of electronic patient records.Irma van der Ploeg - 2003 - Ethics and Information Technology 5 (1):66-67.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-03-05

Downloads
45 (#353,463)

6 months
45 (#92,449)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Anantharaman Muralidharan
National University of Singapore
G. Owen Schaefer
National University of Singapore

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Morality of Freedom.Joseph Raz - 1986 - Philosophy 63 (243):119-122.
Evidentialism.Richard Feldman & Earl Conee - 1985 - Philosophical Studies 48 (1):15 - 34.
On the relationship between propositional and doxastic justification.John Turri - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):312-326.

View all 25 references / Add more references