As our world becomes more dependent on data, algorithms are increasingly being used to make informed decisions in areas ranging from finance to HR. The healthcare sector is no exception, and artificial intelligence systems are becoming more and more widespread in this area. While AI can help us make more informed and efficient decisions, it also presents many moral and ethical challenges. One of the biggest issues is the issue of trust. When "machine" replaces "human" decision making, it can be difficult for patients and healthcare professionals to trust the outcome. In addition, the "black box" mechanisms in artificial intelligence systems make it unclear who is responsible for the decisions made, which can lead to ethical dilemmas. In addition, there is a risk of emotional frustration for patients and healthcare professionals, as AI may not be able to provide the kind of human touch that is often needed in healthcare. Despite increased attention to these issues in recent years, technical solutions to these complex moral and ethical issues are often developed without regard to the social context and opinions of the advocates affected by the technology. In addition, calls for more ethical and socially responsible AI often focus on basic legal principles such as "transparency" and "responsibility" and leave out the much more problematic area of human values. To solve this problem, the article proposes a "value-sensitive" approach to the development of AI, which can help translate basic human rights and values into context-sensitive requirements for AI algorithms. This approach can help create a route from human values to clear and understandable requirements for AI design. It can also help overcome ethical issues that hinder the responsible implementation of AI in healthcare and everyday life.

More from our Archive

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12573 2023

  Impact of digital transformation on performance of environment, social, and governance: Empirical evidence from China

  Quan‐Jing Wang, Hai‐Jie Wang, Gen‐Fu Feng, Chun‐Ping Chang

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12572 2023

  The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attribution on job satisfaction and turnover intention

  Xin Chen, Eric Hansen, Jianfeng Cai, Jichang Xiao

• DOI: 10.46222/pharosjot.104.411 2023

  The Use of Smartphones to Communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ

  Gedala Mulliah Naidoo

• DOI: 10.1111/mila.12466 2023

  Creating a large language model of a philosopher

  Eric Schwitzgebel, David Schwitzgebel, Anna Strasser

• DOI: 10.1177/14777509231188830 2023

  The paradox of medical necessity

  Samantha Godwin, Brian D Earp

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12576 2023

  Not all stakeholders are equal: Corporate social responsibility variability and corporate financial performance

  Yongqiang Gao, Yumeng Nie, Taïeb Hafsi

• DOI: 10.1111/japp.12674 2023

  Responsibility for Future Climate Justice: The Direct Responsibility to Mitigate Structural Injustice for Future Generations

  Daan Keij, Boris Robert van Meurs

• DOI: 10.1111/josh.13360 2023

  Academic Accommodations for Middle and High School Students Following a Concussion: Perspectives of Teachers and School Administrators

  Heather A. Shepherd, Keith O. Yeates, Nick Reed, Jeffrey G. Caron, Kathryn J. Schneider, Carolyn A. Emery, Amanda M. Black

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12574 2023

  Corporate environmental efforts, government environmental subsidies, and corporate <scp>non‐environmental</scp> R&amp;D intensity: Evidence from listed firms

  Weihong Chen, David Diwei Lv, Christina W. Y. Wong

• DOI: 10.1111/pops.12906 2023

  Why Chile “Woke Up.” Antecedents of the Formation of Prochange Group Consciousness Promoting Collective Action

  Stefanie Hechler, Maria Chayinska, Clara Sophie Wekenborg, Felipe Moraga‐Villablanca, Thomas Kessler, Craig McGarty