Advanced search
Add to list

Watson, autonomy and value flexibility : revisiting the debate

Jasper Debrabander (UGent) and Heidi Mertes (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Many ethical concerns have been voiced about Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Special attention has been paid to the effect of CDSSs on autonomy, responsibility, fairness and transparency. This journal has featured a discussion between Rosalind McDougall and Ezio Di Nucci that focused on the impact of IBM’s Watson for Oncology (Watson) on autonomy. The present article elaborates on this discussion in three ways. First, using Jonathan Pugh’s account of rational autonomy we show that how Watson presents its results might impact decisional autonomy, while how Watson produces knowledge might affect practical autonomy. Second, by drawing an analogy with patient decision aids we identify an empirical way of estimating Watson’s impact on autonomy (ie, value-congruence). Lastly, McDougall introduced the notion of value-flexible design as a way to account for the diverging preferences patients hold. We will clarify its relation with the established domain of value-sensitive design. In terms of the tripartite methodology of value-sensitive design, we offer a conceptual clarification using Pugh’s account of rational autonomy, an empirical tool to evaluate Watson’s impact on autonomy and situate a group of technical options to incorporate autonomy in Watson’s design.
Keywords
Health Policy, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Issues, ethics and legal aspects, Health(social science), autonomy, clinical ethics, decision-making

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Debrabander, Jasper, and Heidi Mertes. “Watson, Autonomy and Value Flexibility : Revisiting the Debate.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2022, doi:10.1136/medethics-2021-107513.
APA
Debrabander, J., & Mertes, H. (2022). Watson, autonomy and value flexibility : revisiting the debate. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107513
Chicago author-date
Debrabander, Jasper, and Heidi Mertes. 2022. “Watson, Autonomy and Value Flexibility : Revisiting the Debate.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107513.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Debrabander, Jasper, and Heidi Mertes. 2022. “Watson, Autonomy and Value Flexibility : Revisiting the Debate.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS. doi:10.1136/medethics-2021-107513.
Vancouver
1.
Debrabander J, Mertes H. Watson, autonomy and value flexibility : revisiting the debate. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS. 2022;
IEEE
[1]
J. Debrabander and H. Mertes, “Watson, autonomy and value flexibility : revisiting the debate,” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2022.
@article{8726190,
  abstract     = {{Many ethical concerns have been voiced about Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Special attention has been paid to the effect of CDSSs on autonomy, responsibility, fairness and transparency. This journal has featured a discussion between Rosalind McDougall and Ezio Di Nucci that focused on the impact of IBM’s Watson for Oncology (Watson) on autonomy. The present article elaborates on this discussion in three ways. First, using Jonathan Pugh’s account of rational autonomy we show that how Watson presents its results might impact decisional autonomy, while how Watson produces knowledge might affect practical autonomy. Second, by drawing an analogy with patient decision aids we identify an empirical way of estimating Watson’s impact on autonomy (ie, value-congruence). Lastly, McDougall introduced the notion of value-flexible design as a way to account for the diverging preferences patients hold. We will clarify its relation with the established domain of value-sensitive design. In terms of the tripartite methodology of value-sensitive design, we offer a conceptual clarification using Pugh’s account of rational autonomy, an empirical tool to evaluate Watson’s impact on autonomy and situate a group of technical options to incorporate autonomy in Watson’s design.}},
  author       = {{Debrabander, Jasper and Mertes, Heidi}},
  issn         = {{0306-6800}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS}},
  keywords     = {{Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues,ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science),autonomy,clinical ethics,decision-making}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  title        = {{Watson, autonomy and value flexibility : revisiting the debate}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107513}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: