9 found
Order:
  1. Who is afraid of black box algorithms? On the epistemological and ethical basis of trust in medical AI.Juan Manuel Durán & Karin Rolanda Jongsma - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (5):medethics - 2020-106820.
    The use of black box algorithms in medicine has raised scholarly concerns due to their opaqueness and lack of trustworthiness. Concerns about potential bias, accountability and responsibility, patient autonomy and compromised trust transpire with black box algorithms. These worries connect epistemic concerns with normative issues. In this paper, we outline that black box algorithms are less problematic for epistemic reasons than many scholars seem to believe. By outlining that more transparency in algorithms is not always necessary, and by explaining that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  2.  44
    Responsibility beyond design: Physicians’ requirements for ethical medical AI.Martin Sand, Juan Manuel Durán & Karin Rolanda Jongsma - 2021 - Bioethics 36 (2):162-169.
    Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 2, Page 162-169, February 2022.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  3.  65
    National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees.Matthew S. McCoy, Karin Rolanda Jongsma, Phoebe Friesen, Michael Dunn, Carolyn Plunkett Neuhaus, Leah Rand & Mark Sheehan - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):801-804.
    Biomedical research funding bodies across Europe and North America increasingly encourage—and, in some cases, require—investigators to involve members of the public in funded research. Yet there remains a striking lack of clarity about what ‘good’ or ‘successful’ public involvement looks like. In an effort to provide guidance to investigators and research organisations, representatives of several key research funding bodies in the UK recently came together to develop the National Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Standards have critical implications for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  23
    The implausibility of response shifts in dementia patients.Karin Rolanda Jongsma, Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Suzanne van de Vathorst - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (9):597-600.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  5.  32
    Response to our reviewers.Juan Manuel Durán & Karin Rolanda Jongsma - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):514-514.
    We would like to thank the authors of the commentaries for their critical appraisal of our feature article, Who is afraid of black box algorithms?1 Their comments, suggestions and concerns are various, and we are glad that our article contributes to the academic debate about the ethical and epistemic conditions for medical Explanatory AI. We would like to bring to attention a few issues that are common worries across reviewers. Most prominently are the merits of computational reliabilism —in particular, when (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  36
    Dementia research and advance consent: it is not about critical interests.Karin Rolanda Jongsma & Suzanne van de Vathorst - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (8):708-709.
  7.  37
    Agree to disagree: the symmetry of burden of proof in human–AI collaboration.Karin Rolanda Jongsma & Martin Sand - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (4):230-231.
    In their paper ‘Responsibility, second opinions and peer-disagreement: ethical and epistemological challenges of using AI in clinical diagnostic contexts’, Kempt and Nagel discuss the use of medical AI systems and the resulting need for second opinions by human physicians, when physicians and AI disagree, which they call the rule of disagreement.1 The authors defend RoD based on three premises: First, they argue that in cases of disagreement in medical practice, there is an increased burden of proof for the physician in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  28
    The usual suspects: why techno-fixing dementia is flawed.Karin Rolanda Jongsma & Martin Sand - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (1):119-130.
    Dementia is highly prevalent and up until now, still incurable. If we may believe the narrative that is currently dominant in dementia research, in the future we will not have to suffer from dementia anymore, as there will be a simple techno-fix solution. It is just a matter of time before we can solve the growing public health problem of dementia. In this paper we take a critical stance towards overly positive narratives of techno-fixes by placing our empirical analysis of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9.  23
    Alleviating the burden of malaria with gene drive technologies? A biocentric analysis of the moral permissibility of modifying malaria mosquitoes.Nienke de Graeff, Karin Rolanda Jongsma & Annelien L. Bredenoord - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (11):765-771.
    Gene drive technologies (GDTs) have been proposed as a potential new way to alleviate the burden of malaria, yet have also raised ethical questions. A central ethical question regarding GDTs relates to whether it is morally permissible to intentionally modify or eradicate mosquitoes in this way and how the inherent worth of humans and non-human organisms should be factored into determining this. Existing analyses of this matter have thus far generally relied on anthropocentric and zoocentric perspectives and rejected an individualist (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark