Digitized Future of Medicine: Challenges for Bioethics

The article discusses the challenges, benefits, and risks that, from a bioethical perspective, arise because of the the development of eHealth projects. The conceptual framework of the research is based on H. Jonas’ principles of the ethics of responsibility and B.G. Yudin’s anthropological ideas on human beings as agents who constantly change their own boundaries in the “zone of phase transitions.” The article focuses on the events taking place in the zone of phase transitions between humans and machines in eHealth. It is shown that for innovative practices related to digitalization and datafication in medicine, it is needed to rethink central bioethical concepts of personal autonomy and informed consent. In particular, the concept of broad or open informed consent is discussed, which allows the idea of moral responsibility in the field of biomedical technologies to be extended to events of uncertain future. The authors draw attention to the problems associated with the emergence of new autonomous subjects/agents (machines with artificial intelligence) in relationship between doctors and patients. The humanization of machines occurring in eHealth is accompanied by a counter trend – the formation of conceptions and practices of the quantified self. There emerges the practices of self-care and bio-power (M. Foucault) caused by the datafication and digitization of personality. The authors conclude that bioethics should proactively develop norms for the evolving interaction between doctor and patients.

eHealth, information and communication technologies, doctor-patient interaction, autonomy, informed consent, confidentiality, moral machines, machine agency, quantified identity, self-care, bio-power

1. Abrugar V. (2014) Quantified self: how self-tracking technology can improve your life. Retrieved from https://blog.goalmap.com/en/quantifiedself-how-self-tracking-technology-can-improve-your-life

2. Anderson M. & Anderson S.L. (Eds.) (2011) Machine Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

3. Barkham P. (2000, June 8) Is the net healthy for doctors? The Guardian. P. 2.

4. Christen M. et al. (2016) On the compatibility of big data driven research and informed consent: the example of the human brain project. In: The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data (pp. 199-218). Cham: Springer,.

5. Cohen G., Vayena E., & Gasser U. (2018) Introduction. In: Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics (pp. 1-13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

6. Collste G. (2006) The Ethics of e-Medicine. In: Social Informatics: An Information Society for all? In Remembrance of Rob Kling. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human Choice and Computers (pp. 101-109). Boston, MA: Springer.

7. Fisk M.J. (1997) Telecare Equipment in the Home. Issues of Intrusiveness and Control. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. Vol. 3, no. 1 suppl., pp. 30-32.

8. Foucault M. (1998) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3: The Care of the Self. Kiev: Dukh i litera; Moscow: Grunt (Russian translation).

9. Foucault M. (1999) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem (Russian translation).

10. Groves P. et al. (2013) The “Big Data” Revolution in Healthcare: Accelerating Value and Innovation. Report published by the Center for US Health System Reform. Retrieved from http://repositorio.colciencias.gov.co/bitstream/handle/11146/465/1661-The_big_data_revolution_in_healthcare.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

11. Hansson M. et al. (2006) Should Donors be Allowed to Give Broad Consent to Future Biobank Research? Lancet Oncology. Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 266-269.

12. Holsen T. et al. (2019) From Big Data to Precision Medicine. Frontiers in Medicine. Vol. 6. Article 34.

13. Jonas H. (2004) The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Moscow: Iris (in Russian).

14. Kobrinsky B.A. (2017) Personalized Medicine: Genome, e-Health and Smart Systems. Part 1. Genomics and Monitoring of Clinical Data. Rus sian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics. Vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 16-20 (in Russian).

15. Nyholm S. (2018) Attributing Agency to Automated Systems: Reflections on Human-Robot Collaborations and Responsibility-Loci. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1201-1219.

16. Rudel D. & Fisk M. (2008) New Potentials of Telecommunication Technologies: Potential in the Healthcare Service Frameworks. In: Kovacic L. & Zaletel-Kragelj L. (Eds.) Management in Health Care Practice: A Handbook for Teachers, Researchers and Health Professionals (pp. 317-328). Lage: Hans Jacobs.

17. Sheehan M. (2011) Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics. Vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 226-235.

18. Stolyarova O.E. (2016) Medical Technologies, Doctors and Patients: The Issue of Intensionality. In: Kasavin I.T. (Ed.) Social Philosophy of Science. Russian Perspective (pp. 201-213). Moscow: Knorus (in Russian).

19. Strand R. & Kaiser M. (2015) Report on Ethical Issues Raised by Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics. Bergen: Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen.

20. Swan M. (2013) The Quantified Self: Fundamental Disruption in Big Data Science and Biological Discovery. Big Data. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 85-99. .

21. Tishchenko P.D. (2018) “What is a Man?” Answers of Boris Yudin. Chelovek. 2018. No. 5, pp. 5-17 (in Russian).

22. Tonkens R. (2015) Ethics of Robotic Assisted Dying. In: van Rysewyk S.P. & Pontier M. (Eds.) Machine Medical Ethics (pp. 207-207). Cham: Springer.

23. Van Den Eede Y. (2015) Where is the Human? Beyond the Enhancement Debate. Science. Technology & Human Values. Vol 40, no 1, pp. 149-162.

24. van Rysewyk S.P. & Pontier M. (Eds.) (2015) Machine Medical Ethics. Cham: Springer.

25. Whitby B. (2015) Automating Medicine the Ethical Way. In: van Rysewyk S.P. & Pontier M. (Eds.) Machine Medical Ethics (pp. 223-233). Cham: Springer.

26. Yudin B.G. (2018) Man: Going Beyond. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya (in Russian).

27. Yudin B.G. (2016) Technoscience and Human Enhancement. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 18-27 (in Russian).