When AI Writes Back: Ethical Considerations by Physicians on AI-Drafted Patient Message Replies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13217v1
• Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:46:49 GMT
• Title: When AI Writes Back: Ethical Considerations by Physicians on AI-Drafted Patient Message Replies
• Abstract summary: We conducted a semi-structured interview study with 21 physicians who participated in a GenAI pilot program.<n> notable ethical considerations expressed by the physician participants included human oversight as ethical safeguard, transparency and patient consent of AI use.<n>Our findings suggest that the ethical responsibility of using GenAI in this context primarily lies with users, not with the technology.
• Score: 8.132670312508278
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing burden of responding to large volumes of patient messages has become a key factor contributing to physician burnout. Generative AI (GenAI) shows great promise to alleviate this burden by automatically drafting patient message replies. The ethical implications of this use have however not been fully explored. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 21 physicians who participated in a GenAI pilot program. We found that notable ethical considerations expressed by the physician participants included human oversight as ethical safeguard, transparency and patient consent of AI use, patient misunderstanding of AI's role, and patient privacy and data security as prerequisites. Additionally, our findings suggest that the physicians believe the ethical responsibility of using GenAI in this context primarily lies with users, not with the technology. These findings may provide useful insights into guiding the future implementation of GenAI in clinical practice.

Related papers

• Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation [66.06040950325969]
  This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation.<n>By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T05:56:04Z)
• The doctor will polygraph you now: ethical concerns with AI for fact-checking patients [0.23248585800296404]
  Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have been proposed for the prediction of social behaviors. This raises novel ethical concerns about respect, privacy, and control over patient data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T02:55:30Z)
• Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Ethical Considerations and Assessment Checklist [10.980912140648648]
  We conduct a scoping review of ethical discussions on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in healthcare. We propose to reduce the gaps by developing a checklist for comprehensive assessment and transparent documentation of ethical discussions in GenAI research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T11:55:07Z)
• FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare [73.78776682247187]
  Concerns have been raised about the technical, clinical, ethical and legal risks associated with medical AI. This work describes the FUTURE-AI guideline as the first international consensus framework for guiding the development and deployment of trustworthy AI tools in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T10:49:05Z)
• A Conceptual Algorithm for Applying Ethical Principles of AI to Medical Practice [5.005928809654619]
  AI-powered tools are increasingly matching or exceeding specialist-level performance across multiple domains.<n>These systems promise to reduce disparities in care delivery across demographic, racial, and socioeconomic boundaries.<n>The democratization of such AI tools can reduce the cost of care, optimize resource allocation, and improve the quality of care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-23T04:14:18Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Holding AI to Account: Challenges for the Delivery of Trustworthy AI in Healthcare [8.351355707564153]
  We examine the problem of trustworthy AI and explore what delivering this means in practice. We argue here that this overlooks the important part played by organisational accountability in how people reason about and trust AI in socio-technical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T18:22:23Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• What Do End-Users Really Want? Investigation of Human-Centered XAI for Mobile Health Apps [69.53730499849023]
  We present a user-centered persona concept to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) Results show that users' demographics and personality, as well as the type of explanation, impact explanation preferences. Our insights bring an interactive, human-centered XAI closer to practical application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-07T12:51:27Z)
• Breaking Bad News in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Medicine: An Exploration of Disclosure and its Ethical Justification using the Hedonic Calculus [0.0]
  We show how the 'Felicific Calculus' may have a timely quasi-quantitative application in the age of AI. We show how this ethical algorithm can be used to assess, across seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive domains, whether an AI-supported action can be morally justified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T16:54:18Z)
• IAC: A Framework for Enabling Patient Agency in the Use of AI-Enabled Healthcare [1.0878040851638]
  We present IAC (Informing, Assessment, and Consent), a framework for evaluating patient response to the introduction of AI-enabled digital technologies in healthcare settings. The framework is composed of three core principles that guide how healthcare practitioners can inform patients about the use of AI in their healthcare. We propose that the principles composing this framework can be translated into guidelines that improve practitioner-patient relationships and, concurrently, patient agency regarding the use of AI in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-29T16:13:15Z)
• Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Measuring Influence of AI 'Assessments' on Moral Decision-Making [48.66982301902923]
  We examined the effect of feedback from false AI on moral decision-making about donor kidney allocation. We found some evidence that judgments about whether a patient should receive a kidney can be influenced by feedback about participants' own decision-making perceived to be given by AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-13T14:15:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.