There are various ethical systems that can be used to evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) within healthcare, and for me, the one I find most useful is the Deontological Ethics as discussed by Kant, which I will super-simplify as this:
A person should not be treated as a means to an end, rather they should be treated as an end in of themselves.
The application of this within the healthcare system is rather obvious. For example, I would contend the Big Data mining of EHRs to populate AI algorithms—even if these algorithms are able to create a greater good for most people most of the time (a Utilitarian Ethics)—is generally deontologically unethical because it by necessity uses a person (via their EHR dataset) as a means to an end, rather than as an end in of themselves.
Here’s the catch: Deontological Ethics has its roots in Kantian philosophy—and there is one part of his philosophy I deeply disagree with—his stand on animals.
Consider this statement by Kant:
The fact that the human being can have the representation “I” raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this, he is a person….that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one’s discretion.
Every fiber of my being resists this. In fact, I find this view nearly as repulsive as my cat “Roo” (short for Rousseau, and pictured above) might!
And there is the crux of the problem. How do I reconcile the ideas of a historical figure—ideas which I find useful or beautiful—with some of their other ideas which I find repulsive?
Call it what you will. I call it “The Wagner Problem” (my appreciation of the beauty and power of his Ring Cycle vs. my contempt for his anti-semitism). The greatness of ideas seems all too often to be paired with equally great weaknesses of character.
So, what to do?
Well, in the case of Kant and his deontology, I do feel I am able to evaluate his views separately—accepting his deontology as applied to humans as a very useful tool, while actively and fully rejecting his views on animals.
But regarding the resolution of the many other hypocrisies of our past?
I’m sorry, I have no wisdom to offer here, and will defer to others who are wiser than me.
Note: For those of you interested in reading more about the philosophy underpinning animal rights, check out “The Moral Status of Animals” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of my favorite online resources for all things philosophy!)