4.3 Article

Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care

期刊

MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 61-71

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-021-10049-w

关键词

Chatbot; Health care; Expertise; Professional ethics; COVID-19

资金

  1. Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation - Academy of Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the impact of chatbots on healthcare professional ethics, suggesting the need for new approaches in professional ethics as artificial intelligence is deployed on a large scale. The implementation of chatbots amplifies the project of rationality and automation in clinical practice and alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence.
Many experts have emphasised that chatbots are not sufficiently mature to be able to technically diagnose patient conditions or replace the judgements of health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has significantly increased the utilisation of health-oriented chatbots, for instance, as a conversational interface to answer questions, recommend care options, check symptoms and complete tasks such as booking appointments. In this paper, we take a proactive approach and consider how the emergence of task-oriented chatbots as partially automated consulting systems can influence clinical practices and expert-client relationships. We suggest the need for new approaches in professional ethics as the large-scale deployment of artificial intelligence may revolutionise professional decision-making and client-expert interaction in healthcare organisations. We argue that the implementation of chatbots amplifies the project of rationality and automation in clinical practice and alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence. This article contributes to the discussion on the ethical challenges posed by chatbots from the perspective of healthcare professional ethics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据