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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.