Simulations are used in very different contexts and for very different purposes. An emerging development is the possibility of using simulations to obtain a more or less representative reproduction of organs or even entire persons. Such simulations are framed and discussed using the term ‘digital twin’. This paper unpacks and scrutinises the current use of such digital twins in medicine and the ideas embedded in this practice. First, the paper maps the different types of digital twins. A special focus is (...) put on the concrete challenges inherent in the interactions between persons and their digital twin. Second, the paper addresses the questions of how far a digital twin can represent a person and what the consequences of this may be. Against the background of these two analytical steps, the paper defines first conditions for digital twins to take on an ethically justifiable form of representation. (shrink)
Making good decisions in extremely complex and difficult processes and situations has always been both a key task as well as a challenge in the clinic and has led to a large amount of clinical, legal and ethical routines, protocols and reflections in order to guarantee fair, participatory and up-to-date pathways for clinical decision-making. Nevertheless, the complexity of processes and physical phenomena, time as well as economic constraints and not least further endeavours as well as achievements in medicine and healthcare (...) continuously raise the need to evaluate and to improve clinical decision-making. This article scrutinises if and how clinical decision-making processes are challenged by the rise of so-called artificial intelligence-driven decision support systems. In a first step, this article analyses how the rise of AI-DSS will affect and transform the modes of interaction between different agents in the clinic. In a second step, we point out how these changing modes of interaction also imply shifts in the conditions of trustworthiness, epistemic challenges regarding transparency, the underlying normative concepts of agency and its embedding into concrete contexts of deployment and, finally, the consequences for ascriptions of responsibility. Third, we draw first conclusions for further steps regarding a ‘meaningful human control’ of clinical AI-DSS. (shrink)
In discourses on digitization and the data economy, it is often claimed that data subjects shall be owners of their data. In this paper, we provide a problem diagnosis for such calls for data ownership: a large variety of demands are discussed under this heading. It thus becomes challenging to specify what—if anything—unites them. We identify four conceptual dimensions of calls for data ownership and argue that these help to systematize and to compare different positions. In view of this pluralism (...) of data ownership claims, we introduce, spell out and defend a constructive interpretative proposal: claims for data ownership are charitably understood as attempts to call for the redistribution of material resources and the socio-cultural recognition of data subjects. We argue that as one consequence of this reading, it misses the point to reject claims for data ownership on the grounds that property in data does not exist. Instead, data ownership brings to attention a claim to renegotiate such aspects of the status quo. (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...
According to the judgement of the European Court of Justice in 2014, human parthenogenetic stem cells are excluded from the patenting prohibition of procedures based on hESC by the European Biopatent Directive, because human parthenotes are not human embryos. This article is based on the thesis that in light of the technological advances in the field of stem cell research, the attribution of the term ‘human embryo’ to certain entities on a descriptive level as well as the attribution of a (...) normative protection status to certain entities based on the criterion of totipotency, are becoming increasingly unclear. The example of human parthenotes in particular demonstrates that totipotency is not at all a necessary condition for the attribution of the term ‘human embryo’. Furthermore, the example of hiPSC and somatic cells particularly shows that totipotency is also not a sufficient condition for the attribution of a normative protection status to certain entities. Therefore, it is not a suitable criterion for distinguishing between human embryos worthy of protection and human non-embryos not worthy of protection. Consequently, this conclusion has repercussions for the patenting question. The strict delineation between an ethically problematic commercial use of human embryos and the concomitant patenting prohibition of hESC-based procedures and an ethically unproblematic commercial use of human non-embryos and the therefore either unrestrictedly permitted or even unregulated patenting of procedures based on these alleged alternatives becomes increasingly blurred. (shrink)
Genome editing techniques are seen to be at the frontier of current research in the field of emerging biotechnologies. However, such biotechnological research is tensioned at the interface of science, technology and society. On the one hand, this means that it offers a tremendous potential to provide new concepts, methods and – in the long run – novel applications for urgent challenges and needs within society.
This paper argues that data-driven medicine gives rise to a particular normative challenge. Against the backdrop of a distinction between the good and the right, harnessing personal health data towards the development and refinement of data-driven medicine is to be welcomed from the perspective of the good. Enacting solidarity drives progress in research and clinical practice. At the same time, such acts of sharing could—especially considering current developments in big data and artificial intelligence—compromise the right by leading to injustices and (...) affecting concrete modes of individual self-determination. In order to address this potential tension, two key elements for ethical reflection on data-driven medicine are proposed: the controllability of information flows, including technical infrastructures that are conducive towards controllability, and a paradigm shift towards output-orientation in governance and policy. (shrink)
Neben grundsätzlichen konzeptionellen Fragen der sog. Individualisierten Medizin (IM), prägen ethische Bedenken und Fragen die aktuellen Debatten um die IM. Allerdings ist bislang noch nicht geklärt, in welchem methodischen Rahmen diese Fragen verortet werden können. Für die Entwicklung eines solchen Rahmens wird das Modell der First- und Second-Wave-Bioethics diskutiert und an zwei konkreten Herausforderungen – 1) dem Verhältnis der IM zur evidenz-basierten Medizin und 2) am Konzept der genetischen Risikoperson – aufgezeigt. Eine solche Kontextualisierung der IM-Debatte legt den Grundstein für (...) eine adäquate Erfassung und Bearbeitung sozialethischer Fragen (z. B. im Hinblick auf das Problem der Eigenverantwortung). (shrink)
ZusammenfassungNeben grundsätzlichen konzeptionellen Fragen der sog. Individualisierten Medizin, prägen ethische Bedenken und Fragen die aktuellen Debatten um die IM. Allerdings ist bislang noch nicht geklärt, in welchem methodischen Rahmen diese Fragen verortet werden können. Für die Entwicklung eines solchen Rahmens wird das Modell der First- und Second-Wave-Bioethics diskutiert und an zwei konkreten Herausforderungen – 1) dem Verhältnis der IM zur evidenz-basierten Medizin und 2) am Konzept der genetischen Risikoperson – aufgezeigt. Eine solche Kontextualisierung der IM-Debatte legt den Grundstein für eine (...) adäquate Erfassung und Bearbeitung sozialethischer Fragen. (shrink)
ZusammenfassungNeben grundsätzlichen konzeptionellen Fragen der sog. Individualisierten Medizin, prägen ethische Bedenken und Fragen die aktuellen Debatten um die IM. Allerdings ist bislang noch nicht geklärt, in welchem methodischen Rahmen diese Fragen verortet werden können. Für die Entwicklung eines solchen Rahmens wird das Modell der First- und Second-Wave-Bioethics diskutiert und an zwei konkreten Herausforderungen – 1) dem Verhältnis der IM zur evidenz-basierten Medizin und 2) am Konzept der genetischen Risikoperson – aufgezeigt. Eine solche Kontextualisierung der IM-Debatte legt den Grundstein für eine (...) adäquate Erfassung und Bearbeitung sozialethischer Fragen. (shrink)
