Årg. 25 Nr. 44 (2026): Kunstig Intelligens og sundhed
Originalartikler

Between Theoretical and Empirical Ethics of Healthcare Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Autonomy in Breast Cancer Screening

PDF
  • Victor Vadmand Jensen,
  • Jens Christian Bjerring
Victor Vadmand Jensen
Institut for Klinisk Medicin - Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus Universitet & Universitetsklinik for Interdisciplinære Ortopædkirurgiske Forløb, Regionshospitalet Silkeborg
Bio
Jens Christian Bjerring
Institut for Kultur og Samfund, Aarhus Universitet
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/tfss.v25i44.155084

Publiceret 2026-06-26

Nøgleord

  • etik,
  • autonomi,
  • empirical ethics,
  • AI in healthcare

Citation/Eksport

Jensen, V. V., & Bjerring , J. C. (2026). Between Theoretical and Empirical Ethics of Healthcare Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Autonomy in Breast Cancer Screening. Tidsskrift for Forskning I Sygdom Og Samfund, 25(44), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.7146/tfss.v25i44.155084

Copyright (c) 2026 Victor Vadmand Jensen, Jens Christian Bjerring

Creative Commons License

Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse –Ikke-kommerciel (by-nc).

Resumé

The ethical challenges of healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) have received widespread attention, as they can undermine trust and limit AI’s potential benefits. A key concern is the delegation of autonomy to AI systems, a practice that has drawn criticism from practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. While theoretical ethical guidelines emphasize restricting AI autonomy, they are often seen as vague or impractical. In response, scholars have proposed an empirical ethics approach, which grounds ethical considerations in real-world clinical settings. However, little research has examined how this approach applies to healthcare AI in practice. This paper contrasts theoretical and empirical ethics in the context of AI autonomy. Using breast cancer screening in Danish healthcare as a case study, we explore how intra-normativity shapes perceptions of good care. Our findings show that while theoretical discourse deems autonomous AI unethical, clinical practice views it as ethically acceptable. We conclude by discussing how empirical ethics can inform more practical, context-sensitive guidelines for healthcare AI implementation.

PDF

Referencer

  1. Abramoff, M. D., & Char, D. (2024). What Do We Do with Physicians When Autonomous AI-Enabled Workflow is Better for Patient Outcomes? The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(9), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2377111
  2. Adams, S. J., Tang, R., & Babyn, P. (2020). Patient Perspectives and Priorities Regarding Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Opportunities for Patient-Centered Radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 17(8), 1034–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.01.007
  3. AI HLEG. (2019). ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR TRUSTWORTHY AI. European Commission. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
  4. Bærøe, K., Ives, J., De Vries, M., & Schildmann, J. (2017). On classifying the field of medical ethics. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 30, s12910-017-0193–x. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0193-x
  5. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk/lib/asb/detail.action?docID=5763592
  6. Beede, E., Baylor, E., Hersch, F., Iurchenko, A., Wilcox, L., Ruamviboonsuk, P., & Vardoulakis, L. M. (2020). A Human-Centered Evaluation of a Deep Learning System Deployed in Clinics for the Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376718
  7. Bergquist, M., Rolandsson, B., Gryska, E., Laesser, M., Hoefling, N., Heckemann, R., Schneiderman, J. F., & Björkman-Burtscher, I. M. (2023). Trust and stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of AI tools in clinical radiology. European Radiology, 34(1), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09967-5
  8. Bernstein, M. H., Atalay, M. K., Dibble, E. H., Maxwell, A. W. P., Karam, A. R., Agarwal, S., Ward, R. C., Healey, T. T., & Baird, G. L. (2023). Can incorrect artificial intelligence (AI) results impact radiologists, and if so, what can we do about it? A multi-reader pilot study of lung cancer detection with chest radiography. European Radiology, 33(11), 8263–8269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09747-1
  9. Bugge, M. (2023, July 16). Hovedstaden får kunstig intelligens til at opdage brystkræft—Resten af landet vil gøre den kunsten efter. DR. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/teknologi/hovedstaden-faar-kunstig-intelligens-til-opdage-brystkraeft-resten-af-landet
  10. Danish Health Authority. (n.d.). Information about the Danish breast cancer screening programme (Health for All). Danish Health Authority. Retrieved September 15, 2024, from https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2023/Kraeft/Screening/UK-Pjece-brystkraeft.ashx
  11. Danske Regioner. (2024). Vi skal skabe et godt og effektivt sundhedsvæsen ved brug af kunstig intelligens. Danske Regioner. https://www.regioner.dk/media/0urf11dv/kunstig-intelligens-udspil-070624.pdf
  12. Djursing, T. (2017, October 23). Doktor Watson i modvind: Foreslog livsfarlig medicin til danske patienter | Ingeniøren. Ingeniøren. https://ing.dk/artikel/doktor-watson-i-modvind-foreslog-livsfarlig-medicin-til-danske-patienter
  13. Elhakim, M. T., Graumann, O., Larsen, L. B., Nielsen, M., & Rasmussen, B. S. (2020). Kunstig intelligens til cancerdiagnostik i brystkræftscreening. Ugeskr Læger. https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/kunstig-intelligens-til-cancerdiagnostik-i-brystkraeftscreening
  14. Fang, N., Pluyter, J., Bakker, S., Jacobs, I., Luyer, M., Nederend, J., Raijmakers, J., Chen, L.-L., & Funk, M. (2024). From Experience to Experience: Key Insights for Improved Interaction with AI in Radiology. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650779
  15. Filippi, C. G., Stein, J. M., Wang, Z., Bakas, S., Liu, Y., Chang, P. D., Lui, Y., Hess, C., Barboriak, D. P., Flanders, A. E., Wintermark, M., Zaharchuk, G., & Wu, O. (2023). Ethical Considerations and Fairness in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Neuroradiology. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 44(11), 1242–1248. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7963
  16. Frumer, M., Andersen, R. S., Vedsted, P., & Offersen, S. M. H. (2021). ‘In the Meantime’: Ordinary Life in Continuous Medical Testing for Lung Cancer. Medicine Anthropology Theory, 8(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.8.2.5085
  17. Goh, E., Gallo, R., Hom, J., Strong, E., Weng, Y., Kerman, H., Cool, J. A., Kanjee, Z., Parsons, A. S., Ahuja, N., Horvitz, E., Yang, D., Milstein, A., Olson, A. P. J., Rodman, A., & Chen, J. H. (2024). Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(10), e2440969. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.40969
  18. Haward, M. F., & Janvier, A. (2019). Empirical Over Theoretical Ethics: Choosing What Matters to Patients and Families. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(3), 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1572813
  19. Hernström, V., Josefsson, V., Sartor, H., Schmidt, D., Larsson, A.-M., Hofvind, S., Andersson, I., Rosso, A., Hagberg, O., & Lång, K. (2025). Screening performance and characteristics of breast cancer detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): A randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. The Lancet Digital Health, S258975002400267X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00267-X
  20. Hudnall, C. (2021, June 1). Thinking About AI? American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/Practice-Management-Quality-Informatics/ACR-Bulletin/Articles/June-2021/Thinking-About-AI
  21. Jenvall, L. (2024, June 1). Ny økonomiaftale giver store smil, men regionerne er fanget i et krydspres. DR. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/ny-oekonomiaftale-giver-store-smil-men-regionerne-er-fanget-i-et-krydspres
  22. Kommission for robusthed i sundhedsvæsenet. (n.d.). Robusthedskommissionens anbefalinger—Bilagsrapport. Retrieved December 18, 2024, from https://www.ism.dk/Media/638336462433905130/Robusthed-Bilagsrapport-TILG.pdf
  23. Kühl, J., Elhakim, M. T., Stougaard, S. W., Rasmussen, B. S. B., Nielsen, M., Gerke, O., Larsen, L. B., & Graumann, O. (2023). Population-wide evaluation of artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment of screening mammograms. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10423-7
  24. Lenskjold, A., Nybing, J. U., Trampedach, C., Galsgaard, A., Brejnebøl, M. W., Raaschou, H., Rose, M. H., & Boesen, M. (2023). Should artificial intelligence have lower acceptable error rates than humans? BJR|Open, 5(1), 20220053. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220053
  25. Luchini, C., Pea, A., & Scarpa, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in oncology: Current applications and future perspectives. British Journal of Cancer, 126(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01633-1
  26. Mack, J. W., Block, S. D., Nilsson, M., Wright, A., Trice, E., Friedlander, R., Paulk, E., & Prigerson, H. G. (2009). Measuring therapeutic alliance between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer: The Human Connection Scale. Cancer, 115(14), 3302–3311. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24360
  27. Mainz, J., Munch, L., Bjerring, J. C., & Godtfredsen, S. (2023). Why algorithmic speed can be more important than algorithmic accuracy. Clinical Ethics, 18(2), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509221138750
  28. Maris, M. T., Koçar, A., Willems, D. L., Pols, J., Tan, H. L., Lindinger, G. L., & Bak, M. A. R. (2024). Ethical use of artificial intelligence to prevent sudden cardiac death: An interview study of patient perspectives. BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01042-y
  29. McLennan, S., Fiske, A., Tigard, D., Müller, R., Haddadin, S., & Buyx, A. (2022). Embedded ethics: A proposal for integrating ethics into the development of medical AI. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00746-3
  30. Mudgal, K. S., & Das, N. (2024). The ethical adoption of artificial intelligence in radiology. BJR|Open, 2(1), 20190020. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20190020
  31. Najjar, R. (2023). Redefining Radiology: A Review of Artificial Intelligence Integration in Medical Imaging. Diagnostics, 13(17), 2760. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172760
  32. O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed). Routledge.
  33. Pellegrino, E. D. (1994). Patient and physician autonomy: Conflicting rights and obligations in the physician-patient relationship. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 10, 47–68.
  34. Pols, J. (2015). Towards an empirical ethics in care: Relations with technologies in health care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9582-9
  35. Region Hovedstaden. (2023). Redegørelse om kapacitetsmæssige udfordringer på brystkræftområdet til Task Force for Patientforløb for Kræft- og Hjerteområdet. Region Hovedstaden. https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Viden/Kraeft/Task-Force-Patientforloeb-Kraeft-og-Hjerte/Bilag-2023_39-Region-Hovedstadens-redegoerelse_-brystkraeftomraadet.ashx
  36. Region Midtjylland. (n.d.). Screening for brystkræft. Sundhed - Region Midtjylland. Retrieved December 13, 2024, from https://www.sundhed.rm.dk/sundhedstilbud/kraftscreening/screening-for-brystkraeft/
  37. Region Midtjylland. (2023). Redegørelse for udfordringer på brystkræftområdet. Region Midtjylland. https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Viden/Kraeft/Task-Force-Patientforloeb-Kraeft-og-Hjerte/Bilag/Bilag-2023_42-Region-Midtjyllands-redegoerelse_-brystkraeftomraadet.ashx
  38. Sargent, C., & Smith-Morris, C. (2006). Questioning Our Principles: Anthropological Contributions to Ethical Dilemmas in Clinical Practice. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(02). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180106060154
  39. Schaarup, J. F. R., Aggarwal, R., Dalsgaard, E.-M., Norman, K., Dollerup, O. L., Ashrafian, H., Witte, D. R., Sandbæk, A., & Hulman, A. (2023). Perception of artificial intelligence-based solutions in healthcare among people with and without diabetes: A cross-sectional survey from the health in Central Denmark cohort. Diabetes Epidemiology and Management, 9, 100114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2022.100114
  40. Sheir, S., Manzini, A., Smith, H., & Ives, J. (2024). Adaptable robots, ethics, and trust: A qualitative and philosophical exploration of the individual experience of trustworthy AI. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01938-8
  41. Solanki, P., Grundy, J., & Hussain, W. (2023). Operationalising ethics in artificial intelligence for healthcare: A framework for AI developers. AI and Ethics, 3(1), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00195-z
  42. Sundhedsstrukturkommissionen. (2024). Sundhedsstruktur kommissionens rapport—Beslutningsgrundlag for et mere lige, sammenhængende og bæredygtigt sundhedsvæsen. Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet. https://www.ism.dk/Media/638545635292256419/Hovedrapport-tilg%C3%A6ngelig-fil.pdf
  43. The Boston Consulting Group. (2017). Analyse af kapacitetsanvendelsen på kræftområdet. https://www.ism.dk/Media/8/5/170407-kapacitetsanv-paa-kraeftomraadet.pdf
  44. Van Cauwenberge, D., Van Biesen, W., Decruyenaere, J., Leune, T., & Sterckx, S. (2022). “Many roads lead to Rome and the Artificial Intelligence only shows me one road”: An interview study on physician attitudes regarding the implementation of computerised clinical decision support systems. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00787-8
  45. Wilhøft Kristensen, A., Lunde Jensen, A., Jensen, K., Oksbjerre Dalton, S., Friborg, J., & Grau, C. (2024). Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials. Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology, 29, 100230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2023.100230
  46. Witkowski, K., Okhai, R., & Neely, S. R. (2024). Public perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Ethical concerns and opportunities for patient-centered care. BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01066-4