Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098829›Full record

ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026

The Ethics Committee of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) - Artificial intelligence in end-of-life decision-making processes: ethical reflections.

Enrico Furlan, Nereo Zamperetti, Mariassunta Piccinni, Annachiara Marra, Paolo Cotogni, Alberto Giannini

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 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

6 authors.

Enrico FurlanDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Nereo Zamperetti, Vicenza, Italy.
Mariassunta PiccinniDepartment of Political Science, Law and International Studies, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Annachiara MarraDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Paolo CotogniUnit of Pain Management and Palliative Care, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Molinette Hospital and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Alberto GianniniUnit of Pediatric Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ospedale dei Bambini - ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy. alberto.giannini@asst-spedalicivili.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent proposals to use artificial intelligence (AI) in end-of-life decision-making for incapacitated patients without advance directives have prompted critical reflection by the Ethics Committee of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI). This position paper analyzes both general ethical concerns surrounding AI in clinical practice and specific issues raised by the hypothesis of using AI to reconstruct patients' presumed wishes through recorded clinical conversations or analysis of digital footprints. At a general level, major challenges include lack of explainability (the so-called black box problem), risks of bias linked to non-representative training data, environmental sustainability, and the potential erosion of the clinician-patient relationship. In end-of-life contexts, these concerns are amplified. Systematic recording and retrospective analysis of sensitive conversations raise serious questions regarding privacy, data security, informed consent, and the authenticity of communication. Moreover, algorithmic interpretation may fail to capture the complexity of non-verbal communication and the inherently interpretative nature of moral reasoning. The construction of a "social portrait" from digital traces risks oversimplifying personal identity and generating conflicts with family narratives at a particularly vulnerable moment. The Committee further highlights the risk of delegating ethically weighty relational tasks to technological systems, thereby reinforcing a procedural model of medicine and weakening shared decision-making. For these reasons, the proposed use of AI in this domain is considered ethically problematic in its current form. Any future application would require robust governance, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that AI supports rather than undermines authentic care relationships.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceConfidentialityEnd-of-lifeEnd-of-life decision-making processesEthicsIncapacitated patientIntensive care medicineNon-competent subjectPrivacyRepresentativeness

Identifiers

PMID42098829
PMCPMC13151101

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.