The increasing application of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare raises both hope and ethical concerns. Some advanced machine learning methods provide accurate clinical predictions at the expense of a significant lack of explainability. Alex John London has defended that accuracy is a more important value than explainability in AI medicine. In this article, we locate the trade-off between accurate performance and explainable algorithms in the context of distributive justice. We acknowledge that accuracy is cardinal from outcome-oriented justice because it helps to maximize patients’ benefits and optimizes limited resources. However, we claim that the opaqueness of the algorithmic black box and its absence of explainability threatens core commitments of procedural fairness such as accountability, avoidance of bias, and transparency. To illustrate this, we discuss liver transplantation as a case of critical medical resources in which the lack of explainability in AI-based allocation algorithms is procedurally unfair. Finally, we provide a number of ethical recommendations for when considering the use of unexplainable algorithms in the distribution of health-related resources.

Joan C. Tronto is one of the most distinguished voices in care ethics and American political theory. Her work is the theoretical foundation for research on topics ranging from designing public policy, creating more democratic institutions, improving health care, and adapting urban planning, architecture, and the arts for greater wellbeing. The concepts she formulated have travelled and been discussed across the globe. Professor Tronto's 1987 article, "Beyond gender difference to a theory of care," announces two major themes to be developed in subsequent work: the need to change the moral point of view, and the search for social and political institutions best suited for an ethics of care. Professor Tronto explores these two themes in depth in Moral Boundaries (1993): Why do we talk about moral theories if the objective is to develop a political proposal? How are morality and politics related in and through care? For Professor Tronto, care can serve both as a moral value and a foundation for the political success of a good society. It offers a way to change paradigms, move beyond moral boundaries, and advance towards more just and caring societies. Realizing this, however, requires that we analyze how today's society views care and what power dynamics are involved. She further elaborated her feminist ethical-political proposal in Caring Democracy (2013) and Who cares? (2015). Her starting point, here, is that the care deficit and the democratic deficit are two sides of the same coin. As a consequence, it is not possible to try to solve one without facing the other. While most political theorists focus on the crisis of liberal democracy, citizens' political disaffection, and low electoral participation, Professor Tronto instead insists that genuine democracy requires

Background: In 2021, Spain became the first Southern European country to grant and provide the right to euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. According to the law, the State has the obligation to ensure its access through the health services, which means that healthcare professionals’ participation is crucial. Nevertheless, its implementation has been uneven. Our research focuses on understanding possible ethical conflicts that shape different positions towards the practice of Medical Assistance in Dying, on identifying which core ideas may be underlying them, and on suggesting possible reasons for this disparity. The knowledge acquired contributes to understanding its complexity, shedding light into ambivalent profiles and creating strategies to increase their participation. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative research study by means of semi-structured interviews (1 h) with 25 physicians and nurses from primary care (12), hospital care (7), and palliative care (6), 17 women and 8 men, recruited from Madrid, Catalonia, and Andalusia between March and May 2023. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in Atlas.ti software by means of thematic and interpretative methods to develop a conceptual model. Results: We identified four approaches to MAiD: Full Support (FS), Conditioned Support (CS), Conditioned Rejection (CR), and Full Rejection (FR). Full Support and Full Rejection fitted the traditional for and against positions on MAiD. Nevertheless, there was a gray area in between represented by conditioned profiles, whose participation cannot be predicted beforehand. The profiles were differentiated considering their different interpretations of four core ideas: end-of-life care, religion, professional duty/deontology, and patient autonomy. These ideas can intersect, which means that participants' positions are multicausal and complex. Divergences between profiles can be explained by different sources of moral authority used in their moral reasoning and their individualistic or relational approach to autonomy. Conclusions: There is ultimately no agreement but rather a coexistence of plural moral perspectives regarding MAiD among healthcare professionals. Comprehending which cases are especially difficult to evaluate or which aspects of the law are not easy to interpret will help in developing new strategies, clarifying the legal framework, or guiding moral reasoning and education with the aim of reducing unpredictable non-participations in MAID.

Many groups (healthcare professionals, lawyers, philosophers, non-governmental organisations, bioethics committees, journalists, religious groups, etc.) participate in the bioethical debate about medical assistance in dying (MAiD). Bioethics literature on the topic involve different approaches (analytic, empirical, policy oriented, activist) and various normative perspectives (discourses based on deontological premises as the sanctity of life and human dignity, or on utilitarianism, libertarianism, etc.), some of which are at times irreconcilable. Regarding empirical studies, some voices (e.g., healthcare professionals) have been widely considered but the voice of people who request MAiD has been neglected. Understanding the personal and medical circumstances that lead to MAiD, which can only be achieved by listening to the phenomenological discourse of those involved, is key. This study aims to provide knowledge from the testimonies and experiences of patients who have initiated a MAiD request. We believe this research protocol can increase our understanding of a social and academic controversy that lacks important information to be complete. By doing so, this type of research could inform and improve end-of-life public policies, and particularly the health care of individuals who request a MAiD. We propose a qualitative phenomenological study using semi-structured interviews of people in the process of requesting MAiD, as outlined in the Ley Orgánica 3/2021, de regulación de la eutanasia (LORE), the Spanish Law on the Regulation of Euthanasia. The study is conducted nationally using a convenience sampling. The number of interviews is determined sequentially and cumulatively, depending on the richness of the narratives and the saturation of the information that has been collected. For the purposes of analysis, the interviews are transcribed verbatim and pseudonymised afterwards. Data analysis is conducted at the same time as data collection. The proposed study has received a favourable report from the Coordinating Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics of Andalusia (CCEIBA).

In the light of current legislation on Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD; also known as euthanasia and assisted suicide) in different countries worldwide, there have been some arguments devoted to the right to conscientious objection for healthcare professionals in these specific practices. The goals of this scoping review are to provide an overview of the motivations and causes that lie behind conscientious objection identified by previous literature according to professionals’ experiences and to verify if these motives match with theoretical debates on conscientious objection. As the results show, there is a dissonance between the motivations included in the traditional and mainstream definition of conscientious objection used in theoretical and speculative frameworks and the actual factors that empirical studies note as reported motivations to object to MAiD. Hence, either we consider new factors to include as causes of “conscience”, or we accept that there are motivations that are not actually applicable to conscientious objection and should be addressed by other means. As conscientious objection to MAiD is multifaceted, there can be different kinds of motivations acting at the same time. It is thus pertinent to rebalance theoretical and empirical considerations to fully understand the complexity of the phenomenon and so provide insights on how to best deal with conscientious objection.