ArticleScience and engineering ethics2024
Responsibility Gap(s) Due to the Introduction of AI in Healthcare: An Ubuntu-Inspired Approach.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 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.
- Is Digital Healthcare Better Than None? The Digital Health Technology Dilemma in Low-Income Countries.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Reframing Justice in Healthcare AI: An Ubuntu-Based Approach for Africa.Developing world bioethics · 2026Article
- Beyond the Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Decision-Making, and the Moral Ecology of Care in Africa.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Governing Generative AI in Healthcare: A Normative Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Authority, Trust, and the Architecture of Responsibility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ethical Imperatives for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Clinical Nursing: Viewpoint on Responsible AI Use.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Navigating ethical, regulatory, and implementation barriers to AI in healthcare: pathways toward inclusive digital health in low-resource settings-a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Public trust of AI in healthcare in South Africa: results of a survey.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- An ecosystem approach to governing commercial actors in healthcare AI.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2025Article
- Ethics of artificial intelligence in embryo assessment: mapping the terrain.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- The ethical challenges in the integration of artificial intelligence and large language models in medical education: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to its enormous potential, artificial intelligence (AI) can transform healthcare on a seemingly infinite scale. However, as we continue to explore the immense potential of AI, it is vital to consider the ethical concerns associated with its development and deployment. One specific concern that has been flagged in the literature is the responsibility gap (RG) due to the introduction of AI in healthcare. When the use of an AI algorithm or system results in a negative outcome for a patient(s), to whom can or should responsibility for that outcome be assigned? Although the concept of the RG was introduced in Anglo-American and European philosophy, this paper aims to broaden the debate by providing an Ubuntu-inspired perspective on the RG. Ubuntu, deeply rooted in African philosophy, calls for collective responsibility, and offers a uniquely forward-looking approach to address the alleged RG caused by AI in healthcare. An Ubuntu-inspired perspective can serve as a valuable guide and tool when addressing the alleged RG. Incorporating Ubuntu into the AI ethics discourse can contribute to a more ethical and responsible integration of AI in healthcare.
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.