What Does the AI Doctor Value? Auditing Pluralism in the Clinical Ethics of Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18738v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 17:56:13 GMT
• Title: What Does the AI Doctor Value? Auditing Pluralism in the Clinical Ethics of Language Models
• Abstract summary: Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict.<n>Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance.<n>We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions.
• Score: 3.552218268811112
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict, and such ethical dilemmas often sharply divide reasonable physicians. Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance. The ethical values that large language models bring to medical advice, however, have not been systematically examined. We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions. The ecosystem of frontier models spans physician-level value heterogeneity, and models discuss competing values in their reasoning (Overton pluralism) before committing to a decision. However, individual model decisions are near-deterministic across repeated sampling and semantic variations, failing to reproduce the distributional pluralism of the physician panel. Across benchmark cases, these consistent decisions reflect committed, systematic value preferences. While most model priorities fall within the natural range of inter-physician variation, some significantly underweight patient autonomy. A single LLM deployed without regard for its value priorities could amplify those priorities at scale to every patient it serves. Without explicit efforts to balance ethical perspectives with one or multiple models, these tools risk replacing clinical pluralism with a deployment monoculture.

Related papers

• Rare Diseases, Common Dilemmas: LLMs Prioritize Equal Resource Distribution over Patient Benefit in Decision-Making [6.669841955172372]
  Clinical decision-making often involves prioritizing ethical values, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, respecting a patient's autonomy, and justice.<n>Recent work has begun to assess how large language models (LLMs) make such subjective, value-laden clinical judgments.<n>We present a benchmark of 208 clinically grounded rare disease vignettes, each of which presents genuine, high-stakes conflicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T23:54:22Z)
• Pluralistic Alignment for Healthcare: A Role-Driven Framework [14.636276754192219]
  We propose a first lightweight, generalizable, pluralistic alignment approach, EthosAgents, to simulate diverse perspectives and values.<n>We empirically show that it advances the pluralistic alignment for all three modes across seven varying-sized open and closed models.<n>Our findings reveal that health-related pluralism demands adaptable and normatively aware approaches, offering insights into how these models can better respect diversity in other high-stakes domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T20:28:27Z)
• Leveraging Imperfection with MEDLEY A Multi-Model Approach Harnessing Bias in Medical AI [42.798415096963396]
  Bias in medical artificial intelligence is conventionally viewed as a defect requiring elimination.<n>We propose MEDLEY, a conceptual framework that orchestrates multiple AI models while preserving their diverse outputs.<n>Unlike traditional approaches that suppress disagreement, MEDLEY documents model-specific biases as potential strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T14:12:03Z)
• On Arbitrary Predictions from Equally Valid Models [49.56463611078044]
  Model multiplicity refers to multiple machine learning models that admit conflicting predictions for the same patient.<n>We show that even small ensembles can mitigate/eliminate predictive multiplicity in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T16:15:59Z)
• VITAL: A New Dataset for Benchmarking Pluralistic Alignment in Healthcare [9.087074203425061]
  Existing alignment paradigms fail to account for the diversity of perspectives across cultures, demographics, and communities.<n>This is particularly critical in health-related scenarios, where plurality is essential due to the influence of culture, religion, personal values, and conflicting opinions.<n>This work highlights the limitations of current approaches and lays the groundwork for developing health-specific alignment solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T14:38:57Z)
• Robust and Interpretable Medical Image Classifiers via Concept Bottleneck Models [49.95603725998561]
  We propose a new paradigm to build robust and interpretable medical image classifiers with natural language concepts. Specifically, we first query clinical concepts from GPT-4, then transform latent image features into explicit concepts with a vision-language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T21:57:09Z)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• Representational Ethical Model Calibration [0.7078141380481605]
  Epistem equity is the comparative fidelity of intelligence in decision-making. No general framework for its quantification, let alone assurance, exists. We introduce a comprehensive framework for Representational Ethical Model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-25T10:33:39Z)
• Semi-Supervised Variational Reasoning for Medical Dialogue Generation [70.838542865384]
  Two key characteristics are relevant for medical dialogue generation: patient states and physician actions. We propose an end-to-end variational reasoning approach to medical dialogue generation. A physician policy network composed of an action-classifier and two reasoning detectors is proposed for augmented reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-13T04:14:35Z)
• Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
  It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)
• Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
  Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)

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.