Sharp, Richard

Importance Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective To evaluate oncologists’ views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

AbstractAlpha-synucleinopathies can be identified in their prodromal phase, raising several ethical issues. In this review, we first provide definitions of prodromal α-synucleinopathies and discuss the importance of distinguishing between prodromes and risk factors. Next, we discuss the implications of a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy and considerations regarding prognostic counseling in both clinical and research settings. We review available data on patient preferences regarding disclosure as well as providers' perspectives. We examine the pros and cons of disclosing a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy, taking into consideration the differences between clinical and research settings. Asking about willingness to know in clinical and research settings and the shared decision-making process applied to prognostic counseling is discussed. Concerning research settings, ethical aspects regarding clinical trials are addressed. Availability of direct-to-consumer technologies will likely lead to novel contexts requiring prognostic counseling, and future neuroprotective or neuromodulating treatments may require further considerations on the timing, role, and importance of prognostic counseling. Recommendations on how to address ethical gaps should be a priority for patients, medical professional societies, and research workgroups. Ethical issues must be considered as an integral part of the overall clinical and research approach to prodromal synucleinopathies.

Background: Face transplantation can offer functional and aesthetic restoration to patients who have exhausted their reconstructive options, improving quality of life and psychosocial integration. Ethical issues in face transplantation abound, including questions of patient selection and evaluation before transplantation. To date, there has been no study of ethicists’ opinions regarding face transplantation. Methods: An online survey of attendees of the 2015 International Conference on Clinical Ethics Consultation (n = 401) assessed ethicists’ opinions about face transplantation. Questions examined the risk-to-benefit ratio of immunosuppression; permissibility of face transplantation in subpopulations (including children and blind patients); donor-recipient age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches; and ethical oversight. Results: Most ethicists (84 percent) agreed that it is permissible to perform a face transplantation on an adult in the absence of clear medical contraindications. Most respondents also agreed that it is permissible to perform a face transplantation on a child (62 percent) or a blind patient (61 percent), yet demonstrated less consensus regarding the permissibility of performing a face transplantation on patients with an increased risk of immune rejection. Respondents were generally supportive of age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches, with 43 percent indicating that it is permissible to have a sex mismatch. The majority answered that face transplantation should be covered by federal insurance (74 percent). Conclusions: This study provides insight into clinical ethicists’ views regarding face transplantation. Most ethicists support the ethical permissibility of face transplantation, and did not have concerns about age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches. These findings highlight emerging areas of consensus regarding the ethical permissibility of face transplantation.

ABSTRACTWe describe how our institution responded when an interpreter who participated in the consent process involving an individual with limited English proficiency refused to cosign consent documents attesting that the individual enrolling in the study understood the consent information and that her consent to enroll was voluntary. In developing our approach, our institution took into account ethical tensions between the Belmont principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice that apply to the protection of research participants and the professional principles of beneficence, fidelity, and respect for the importance of culture that are outlined in ethical guidelines for medical interpreters.