Table 1 Summary of the artificial intelligence-related ethical issues in the case of OR 2.0.
From: The future of medicine or a threat? Artificial intelligence representation in Chicago Med
Ethical issue | Representation in the storyline |
|---|---|
Transparency | The surgeon is unaware of a setup in the system, only the company’s representatives can do configurations. The CEO can delete data from the system. |
Selective adherence | The surgeons’ attitudes towards AI influence their reliance on OR 2.0. Uncritical reliance is not beneficial; surgeons must control the final decisions. |
Automation bias | In a routine case, OR 2.0 guides an inexperienced resident through an operation. In a non-routine case, without sufficient data, OR 2.0 stops instructing a surgeon. Automation can cause surgical skill erosion. |
Responsibility gap | The merit for success and the blame for mistakes can go to the surgeon, OR 2.0, or the system’s developer. This ambiguity creates conflicts between doctors. |
Hallucination | The system hallucinates lesions that do not exist, causing complications. |
Unequal access | After a successful introduction period, OR 2.0 is only available for paying patients. |
Political dimensions | Investor interest restricts access to OR 2.0. |
