Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41998681›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

The last human touch: why AI doesn't belong in life's defining moments.

Stephen R Milford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephen R MilfordInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, Basel, Switzerland. Milford.Stephen@gmail.com.

Funding

NCCR (Automation) 225155
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly present in medical contexts, from clinical decision-support systems to patient-facing chatbots. While existing ethical debates focus on AI's moral or legal personhood, little attention has been given to how such systems affect human personal identity. This article addresses that gap by examining the implications of advanced medical AIs through the lens of relational ontology, which understands personhood and identity as constituted through relationships within a community of persons rather than through intrinsic capacities. Drawing on this framework, the paper argues that certain significant life contexts, notably birth, illness, and death, are uniquely formative for human personal identity as they represent sites in which personhood is most intensely expressed and cultivated through personal relations. Using the doctor-patient relationship as a paradigmatic example, this paper demonstrates that medical encounters are not merely instrumental but ontologically constitutive of both patient and physician personal identity. The insertion of non-personal AI into these contexts risks altering, even diminishing, the relational constitution of human personal identity by substituting genuine personhood with simulacra of personal interaction. The article concludes that while AI may appropriately supplement care relationships, its substitution for human persons in significant life contexts should be approached with extreme caution. Protecting the relational integrity of these contexts is essential, not only for ethical medical practice, but also for preserving the conditions under which human personal identity-and thus human value-is expressed and cultivated.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePersonhoodPhysician-Patient RelationsHumans

Identifiers

PMID41998681
PMCPMC13188418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.