ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2024
AI-Enhanced Healthcare: Not a new Paradigm for Informed Consent.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Algorithm's Blindspot: An Ethical Critique of Data-Fetishism and the Deskilling of the Clinical Gaze in Ophthalmology.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Facial Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- Radiology artificial intelligence for prioritized imaging and diagnosis of lung cancer: qualitative interview analysis of stakeholder perspectives in Northern Ireland.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Legal implications of AI standard of care integration on patients' informed consent: lessons from surgery.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Barriers and Facilitators to Health Care AI Adoption Among Those Living in Wales and Working in Health Care in Wales: Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Listening to Patients' Voices on the Use of AI in Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- International expert consensus on the current status and future prospects of artificial intelligence in metabolic and bariatric surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Virtual Reality-Assisted Informed Consent for Anesthesia: A Prospective and Randomized Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Developing a consent checklist for AI in dentistry: Thematic analysis and pilot survey validation.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital technologies in healthcare, the ethical debate surrounding their adoption is becoming more prominent. Here I consider the issue of gaining informed patient consent to AI-enhanced care from the vantage point of the United Kingdom's National Health Service setting. I build my discussion around two claims from the World Health Organization: that healthcare services should not be denied to individuals who refuse AI-enhanced care and that there is no precedence to seeking patient consent to AI-enhanced care. I discus U.K. law relating to patient consent and the General Data Protection Regulation to show that current standards relating to patient consent are adequate for AI-enhanced care. I then suggest that in the future it may not be possible to guarantee patient access to non-AI-enhanced healthcare, in a similar way to how we do not offer patients manual alternatives to automated healthcare processes. Throughout my discussion I focus on the issues of patient choice and veracity in the patient-clinician relationship. Finally, I suggest that the best way to protect patients from potential harms associated with the introduction of AI to patient care is not via an overly burdensome patient consent process but via evaluation and regulation of AI technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.