Advertisement

Ethical and Legal Issues in Decision Support

  • Kenneth W. Goodman
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

The use of computers to help humans make diagnoses and prognoses in the practice of medicine or nursing is an exciting and unsettling development in the evolution of clinical and hospital practice. Such use engenders ethical and legal challenges paralleling those challenges seen regularly to arise with the introduction of many new technologies in healthcare. In the case of computational decision support systems, the most salient ethical issues involve standards of care, appropriate uses and users and professional relationships. Balancing patient safety against opportunities to improve care constitutes a tension that mirrors the difficulty encountered in debates about whether and how the government should regulate decision support systems. At ground are questions of accountability, responsibility and liability. In most cases, we lack adequate empirical data to arrive at uncontroversial conclusions. In the context of an exciting new technology, the reduction of that ignorance itself becomes an ethical imperative.

Keywords

Accountability Bioethics Decision support systems Error Ethics Legal issues Liability Prognostic scoring systems Regulation Responsibility 

References

  1. 1.
    Hippocrates. Prognosis. In Lloyd GER, ed. Hippocratic Writings (trans. by Chadwick J, Mann WN). London: Penguin Books; 1983; 170–185.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller RA, Schaffner KF, Meisel A. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of computer programs in clinical medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:529–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Dombal FT. Ethical considerations concerning computers in medicine in the 1980s. J Med Ethics. 1987;13:179–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller RA. Why the standard view is standard: people, not machines, understand patients’ problems. J Med Philos. 1990;15:581–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman KW. Ethics, medicine, and information technology: intelligent machines and the transformation of health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodman KW. Addressing ethical issues in health information technology. Guest Editorial. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24:252–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berner ES, Webster GD, Shugerman AA, et al. Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1792–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodman KW. Bioethics and health informatics: an introduction. In: Goodman KW, editor. Ethics, computing and medicine: informatics and the transformation of health care. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forrow L, Wartman SA, Brock DW. Science, ethics, and the making of clinical decisions. JAMA. 1988;259:3161–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubin MA. The collaborative autonomy model of medical decision-making. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20(2):311–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall DE, Prochazka AV, Fink AS. Informed consent for clinical treatment. CMAJ. 2012;184(5):533–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodman KW. Outcomes, futility, and health policy research. In: Goodman KW, editor. Ethics, computing and medicine: informatics and the transformation of health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 116–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brody BA. The ethics of using ICU scoring systems in individual patient management. Prob Crit Care. 1989;3:662–70.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knaus WA. Ethical implications of risk stratification in the acute care setting. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1993;2:193–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kullo IJ, Jarvik GP, Manolio TA, et al. Leveraging the electronic health record to implement genomic medicine. Genet Med. 2013;15:270–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ginsburg GS, Haga SB. Translating genomic biomarkers into clinically useful diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2006;6(2):179–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altman RB. Translational bioinformatics: linking the molecular world to the clinical world. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(6):994–1000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abugessaisa I, Saevarsdottir S, Tsipras G, et al. Accelerating translational research by clinically driven development of an informatics platform – a case study. PLoS One. 2014;9(9), e104382.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zuradzki T. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and rational choice under risk or uncertainty. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(11):774–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gottesman O, Kuivaniemi H, Tromp G, et al. The electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network: past, present, and future. Genet Med. 2013;15(10):761–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lazaridis KN, McAllister TM, Babovic-Vuksanovic D, et al. Implementing individualized medicine into the medical practice. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;166C(1):15–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearson SA, Moxey A, Robertson J, et al. Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990–2007). BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:154. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brannigan VM, Dayhoff RE. Medical informatics: the revolution in law, technology, and medicine. J Legal Med. 1986;7:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller RA. Legal issues related to medical decision-support systems. Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1989;6:75–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mortimer H. Computer-aided medicine: present and future issues of liability. Comput Law J. 1989;9:177–203.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turley TM. Expert software systems: the legal implications. Comput Law J. 1988;8:455–77.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anderson JG. Social, ethical and legal barriers to e-health. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(5–6):480–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lluch M. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies-a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(12):849–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beier B. Liability and responsibility for clinical software in the Federal Republic of Germany. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1987;25:237–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brahams D, Wyatt J. Decision aids and the law. Lancet. 1918;ii:632–4.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Allaërt FA, Dussere L. Decision support system and medical liability. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992;750–753.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Birnbaum LN. Strict products liability and computer software. Comput Law J. 1988;8:135–56.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill CJ. Medical expert systems: grappling with the issues of liability. High Tech Law J. 1987;1:483–520.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Snapper JW. Responsibility for computer-based decisions in health care. In: Goodman KW, editor. Ethics, computing and medicine: informatics and the transformation of health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Munsey RR. Trends and events in FDA regulation of medical devices over the last fifty years. Food Drug Law J. 1995;50:163–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Public Law No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), as amended 21 U.S.C. Sections 301 et seq. 1988.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kessler DA, Pape SM, Sundwall DN. The federal regulation of medical devices. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:357–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Public Law No. 94-295, 90 Stat. 539 (1976), codified at 21 U.S.C. Sections 360c et seq. 1982.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brannigan VM. Software quality regulation under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990: hospitals are now the canaries in the software mine. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991:238–242.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321 SEC. 201, 2006–2010.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Karnik K. FDA regulation of clinical decision support software. J Law Biosci. 2014;1(2):202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Young FE. Validation of medical software: present policy of the Food and Drug Administration. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:628–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller RA, Gardner RM. Summary recommendations for the responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):842–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller RA, Gardner RM. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. JAMIA. 1997;4:442–57.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Bioethics and Health PolicyUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations