Advanced search
Publication Cover
The American Journal of Bioethics Volume 24, 2024 - Issue 7
Submit an article Journal homepage
2,226
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Target Article

A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable

Brian D. Earpa University of Oxford;b National University of Singapore;c Yale University and The Hastings CenterCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-2888View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Sebastian Porsdam Manna University of OxfordView further author information
,
Jemima Allend Monash UniversityView further author information
,
Sabine Salloche Hannover Medical SchoolView further author information
,
Vynn Surenf Independent ResearcherView further author information
,
Karin Jongsmag Julius Center of the University Medical Center UtrechtORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8135-6786View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Matthias Braunh University of BonnORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6687-6027View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Dominic Wilkinsona University of Oxford;b National University of Singapore;i John Radcliffe Hospital;j Murdoch Children’s Research InstituteORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3958-8633View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Walter Sinnott-Armstrongk Duke UniversityORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-9966View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Annette Ridl NIH Clinical CenterView further author information
,
David Wendlerl NIH Clinical CenterORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9359-4439View further author information
ORCID Icon &
Julian Savulescua University of Oxford;b National University of SingaporeORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403View further author information
ORCID Icon show all
Pages 13-26 | Published online: 16 Jan 2024

REFERENCES

  • Allen, J., B. D. Earp, J. J. Koplin, and D. Wilkinson. 2023. Consent GPT: Is it ethical to delegate procedural consent to conversational AI? Journal of Medical Ethics. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109347.
  • Askell, A., Y. Bai, A. Chen, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, B. Mann, N. DasSarma, et al. 2021. A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv Preprint (1):1–48. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.00861.
  • Bakker, M., M. Chadwick, H. Sheahan, M. Tessler, L. Campbell-Gillingham, J. Balaguer, N. McAleese, A. Glaese, J. Aslanides, M. M. Botvinick, et al. 2022. Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35:38176–38189.
  • Benzinger, L., J. Epping, F. Ursin, and S. Salloch. 2023. Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: A survey among German anesthesiologists and internists. Pre-print available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374530025.
  • Berger, J. T. 2005. Patients’ interests in their family members’ well-being: An overlooked, fundamental consideration within substituted judgments. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 16 (1):3–10. doi: 10.1086/JCE200516101.
  • Biller-Andorno, N., A. Ferrario, S. Joebges, T. Krones, F. Massini, P. Barth, G. Arampatzis, and M. Krauthammer. 2022. AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: Proceed with care. Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (3):175–183. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106786.
  • Biller-Andorno, N., and A. Biller. 2019. Algorithm-aided prediction of patient preferences-an ethics sneak peek. The New England Journal of Medicine 381 (15):1480–1485. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1904869.
  • Bleher, H., and M. Braun. 2022. Diffused responsibility: Attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems. AI and Ethics 2 (4):747–761. doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00135-x.
  • Braun, M. 2021. Represent me: Please! Towards an ethics of digital twins in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (6):394–400. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106134.
  • Braun, M. 2022. Ethics of digital twins: Four challenges. Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (9):579–580. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107675.
  • Brock, D. W. 2014. Reflections on the patient preference predictor proposal. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):153–60. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu002.
  • Christian, B. 2020. The alignment problem. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Church, K. W., Z. Chen, and Y. Ma. 2021. Emerging trends: A gentle introduction to fine-tuning. Natural Language Engineering 27 (6):763–778. doi: 10.1017/S1351324921000322.
  • Ciroldi, M., A. Cariou, C. Adrie, D. Annane, V. Castelain, Y. Cohen, A. Delahaye, L. M. Joly, R. Galliot, M. Garrouste-Orgeas, et al. 2007. Ability of family members to predict patient’s consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Medicine 33 (5):807–813. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0582-6.
  • de Kerckhove, D. 2021. The personal digital twin, ethical considerations. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 379 (2207):20200367. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0367.
  • Demaree-Cotton, J., B. D. Earp, and J. Savulescu. 2022. How to use AI ethically for ethical decision-making. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (7):1–3. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2075968.
  • Ditto, P. H., and C. J. Clark. 2014. Predicting end-of-life treatment preferences: Perils and practicalities. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):196–204. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu007.
  • Dresser, R. 2014. Law, ethics, and the patient preference predictor. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):178–186. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu004.
  • Earp, B. D. 2022. Meta-surrogate decision making and artificial intelligence. Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (5):287–289. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2022-108307.
  • Earp, B. D., J. Demaree-Cotton, M. Dunn, V. Dranseika, J. A. C. Everett, A. Feltz, G. Geller, I. R. Hannikainen, L. A. Jansen, J. Knobe, et al. 2020. Experimental philosophical bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics Empirical Bioethics 11 (1):30–33. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1714792.
  • Earp, B. D., J. Lewis, V. Dranseika, and I. R. Hannikainen. 2021. Experimental philosophical bioethics and normative inference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 42 (3-4):91–111. doi: 10.1007/s11017-021-09546-z.
  • Earp, B. D., J. Lewis, J. A. Skorburg, I. Hannikainen, and J. A. C. Everett. 2022. Experimental philosophical bioethics of personal identity. In Experimental philosophy of identity and the self, by K. Tobia, 183–202. London: Bloomsbury.
  • Ferrario, A., S. Gloeckler, and N. Biller-Andorno. 2023a. Ethics of the algorithmic prediction of goal of care preferences: From theory to practice. Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (3):165–174. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108371.
  • Ferrario, A., S. Gloeckler, and N. Biller-Andorno. 2023b. AI knows best? Avoiding the traps of paternalism and other pitfalls of AI-based patient preference prediction. Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (3):185–186. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-108945.
  • Gabriel, I. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines 30 (3):411–437. doi: 10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2.
  • Giubilini, A., and J. Savulescu. 2018. The artificial moral advisor. The “ideal observer” meets artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology 31 (2):169–188. doi: 10.1007/s13347-017-0285-z.
  • Gloeckler, S., A. Ferrario, and N. Biller-Andorno. 2022. An ethical framework for incorporating digital technology into advance directives: Promoting informed advance decision making in healthcare. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 95 (3):349–353.
  • Houts, R. M., W. D. Smucker, J. A. Jacobson, P. H. Ditto, and J. H. Danks. 2002. Predicting elderly outpatients’ life-sustaining treatment preferences over time: The majority rules. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 22 (1):39–52. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0202200104.
  • Hubbard, R., Greenblum. J., and J. 2020. Surrogates and artificial intelligence: Why AI trumps family. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3217–27. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00266-6.
  • Jardas, E. J., D. Wasserman, and D. Wendler. 2022. Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor. Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (5):304–310. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107629.
  • John, S. 2014. Patient preference predictors, apt categorization, and respect for autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):169–177. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu008.
  • John, S. D. 2018. Messy autonomy: Commentary on patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):864–864. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104941.
  • Jongsma, K. R., and S. van de Vathorst. 2015. Beyond competence: Advance directives in dementia research. Monash Bioethics Review 33 (2-3):167–180. doi: 10.1007/s40592-015-0034-y.
  • Jost, L. A. 2023. Affective experience as a source of knowledge. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. doi: 10.17630/sta/387.
  • Kang, W. C., J. Ni, N. Mehta, M. Sathiamoorthy, L. Hong, E. Chi, and D. Z. Cheng. 2023. Do LLMs understand user preferences? Evaluating LLMs on user rating prediction. arXivpreprint (1):1–11. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.06474.
  • Kenton, Z., T. Everitt, L. Weidinger, I. Gabriel, V. Mikulik, and G. Irving. 2021. Alignment of language agents. arXiv preprint (1):1–18. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.14659.
  • Kim S. Y. 2014. Improving medical decisions for incapacitated persons: Does focusing on ‘accurate predictions’ lead to an inaccurate picture? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39:187–195. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu010.
  • Kim, J., and B. Lee. 2023. AI-augmented surveys: Leveraging large language models for opinion prediction in nationally representative surveys. arXiv preprint (1):1–18. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09620.
  • Kirk, H. R., B. Vidgen, P. Röttger, and S. A. Hale. 2023. Personalisation within bounds: A risk taxonomy and policy framework for the alignment of large language models with personalized feedback. arXiv preprint (1):1–37. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.05453.
  • Lamanna, C., and L. Byrne. 2018. Should artificial intelligence augment medical decision making? The case for an autonomy algorithm. AMA Journal of Ethics 20 (9):E902–E910. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2018.902.
  • Lewis, J., J. Demaree-Cotton, and B. D. Earp. 2023. Bioethics, experimental approaches. In Encyclopedia of the philosophy of law and social philosophy, by M. Sellers, S. Kirste. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_1053-1.
  • Lindemann, H., and J. L. Nelson. 2014. The surrogate’s authority. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):161–168. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu003.
  • Mainz, J. T. 2023. The patient preference predictor and the objection from higher-order preferences. Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (3):221–222. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108427.
  • O'Neil, C. 2022. Commentary on ‘Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor. Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (5):315–316. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2022-108288.
  • Perry, J. E., L. R. Churchill, and H. S. Kirshner. 2005. The Terri Schiavo case: Legal, ethical, and medical perspectives. Annals of Internal Medicine 143 (10):744–748. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-10-200511150-00012.
  • Porsdam Mann, S., B. D. Earp, N. Møller, V. Suren, and J. Savulescu. 2023. AUTOGEN: A personalized large language model for academic enhancement—Ethics and proof of principle. The American Journal of Bioethics 23 (10):28–41. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2233356.
  • Rid, A., and D. Wendler. 2014a. Treatment decision making for incapacitated patients: Is development and use of a patient preference predictor feasible? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):130–152. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu006.
  • Rid, A., and D. Wendler. 2014b. Use of a patient preference predictor to help make medical decisions for incapacitated patients. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):104–129. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu001.
  • Ryan, M. 2004. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 328 (7436):360–361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360.
  • Sacchi, L., S. Rubrichi, C. Rognoni, S. Panzarasa, E. Parimbelli, A. Mazzanti, C. Napolitano, S. G. Priori, and S. Quaglini. 2015. From decision to shared-decision: Introducing patients’ preferences into clinical decision analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 65 (1):19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2014.10.004.
  • Savulescu, J., and H. Maslen. 2015. Moral enhancement and artificial intelligence: Moral AI?. In Beyond artificial intelligence. Topics in intelligent engineering and informatics, by Romportl, J., Zackova, E., Kelemen, J. 9, 79–95. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09668-1_6.
  • Schwartz, S. M., K. Wildenhaus, A. Bucher, and B. Byrd. 2020. Digital twins and the emerging science of self: Implications for digital health experience design and “small” data. Frontiers in Computer Science 2:31. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2020.00031.
  • Schwitzgebel, E., D. Schwitzgebel, and A. Strasser. 2023. Creating a large language model of a philosopher. arXiv Preprint (1):1–36. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.01339.
  • Senthilnathan, I., and W. Sinnott-Armstrong. Forthcoming. Patient preference predictors: Options, implementations, and policies. Working paper.
  • Shalowitz, D. I., E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler. 2006. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (5):493–497. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.
  • Shalowitz, D. I., E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler. 2007. How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Medicine 4 (3):E35. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040035.
  • Sharadin, N. P. 2018. Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):857–862. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104509.
  • Silveira, M. J. 2022. Advance care planning and advance directives. Up To Date. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/advance-care-planning-and-advance-directives.
  • Sinnott-Armstrong, W., and J. A. Skorburg. 2021. How AI can aid bioethics. Journal of Practical Ethics 9 (1):1–22. doi: 10.3998/jpe.1175.
  • Smucker, W. D., R. M. Houts, J. H. Danks, P. H. Ditto, A. Fagerlin, and K. M. Coppola. 2000. Modal preferences predict elderly patients’ life-sustaining treatment choices as well as patients’ chosen surrogates do. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20 (3):271–280. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000303.
  • Stocking, C. B., G. W. Hougham, D. D. Danner, M. B. Patterson, P. J. Whitehouse, and G. A. Sachs. 2006. Speaking of research advance directives: Planning for future research participation. Neurology 66 (9):1361–1366. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000216424.66098.55.
  • Tomasello, M., M. Carpenter, J. Call, T. Behne, and H. Moll. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5):675–691. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129.
  • Toomey, J., J. Lewis, I. Hannikainen, and B. D. Earp. 2023. Advance medical decision making differs across first- and third-person perspectives. PsyArXiv. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/pcrmd/
  • Tooming, U., and K. Miyazono. 2023. Affective forecasting and substantial self-knowledge. Emotional Self-Knowledge. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003310945-3.
  • van Kinschot, C. M. J., V. R. Soekhai, E. W. de Bekker-Grob, W. E. Visser, R. P. Peeters, T. M. van Ginhoven, and C. van Noord. 2021. Preferences of patients and clinicians for treatment of Graves’ disease: A discrete choice experiment. European Journal of Endocrinology 184 (6):803–812. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-1490.
  • Wasserman, D., and D. Wendler. 2023. Response to commentaries: ‘Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor’. Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (8):580–582. Online ahead of print doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108707.
  • Wendler, D., B. Wesley, M. Pavlick, and A. Rid. 2016. A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: What do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor? Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (4):235–241. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103001.
  • Wu, L., Y. Chen, K. Shen, X. Guo, H. Gao, S. Li, J. Pei, and B. Long. 2023. Graph neural networks for natural language processing: A survey. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 16 (2):119–328. doi: 10.1561/2200000096.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.