Background/Objectives: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has been progressively expanding, with growing interest in its potential application in palliative care, particularly in exercise prescription. However, there is limited scientific evidence addressing professionals’ perceptions of this use. This study aimed to explore Portuguese healthcare professionals’ perceptions of AI in exercise prescription for palliative care and to identify related ethical implications and training needs. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study was conducted using an online questionnaire applied to health professionals. Sociodemographic data, knowledge, and perceptions of AI in exercise prescription in palliative care were collected. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed, including Mann–Whitney and Spearman correlation tests. Results: The sample consisted mainly of young female professionals with backgrounds in physiotherapy. Most participants reported little knowledge and experience with AI in clinical practice but expressed a strong interest in learning. Perceptions regarding the usefulness of AI were neutral to slightly positive, particularly concerning quality of life and personalization of interventions. Ethical aspects were viewed positively, especially the complementarity of AI to human clinical judgement, transparency, and explicability. Spearman correlations indicated that greater AI literacy and longer clinical experience were associated with more positive perceptions. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of developing structured training programmes that integrate practical, ethical, and technical components for the safe and responsible use of AI in palliative care. Ethical guidelines are proposed to ensure the humanization of care and the preservation of patient autonomy when implementing AI in exercise prescription.

Background/Objectives: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into rehabilitation practice has expanded rapidly, including its emerging application in palliative care contexts. Although international organisations have established ethical and governance frameworks for AI in healthcare, these initiatives remain largely high-level and are not specifically tailored to the clinical complexity, vulnerability, and relational dimensions of palliative care rehabilitation. The absence of context-specific ethical–regulatory guidance poses challenges for responsible implementation in ethically sensitive settings. This study aimed to consolidate ethically grounded regulatory guidance for the use of AI in palliative care rehabilitation by translating existing international principles into context-sensitive domains. Methods: A qualitative documentary analysis with a normative ethical–regulatory orientation was conducted using the READ (Ready, Extract, Analyse, Distil) framework. Authoritative international policy, governance, and regulatory documents addressing AI in healthcare were identified and analysed. Data were extracted using a structured analytical table and coded according to predefined ethical–regulatory domains derived from previously published ethical guidelines and verified through documentary analysis. Results: The analysis identified five convergent ethical–regulatory domains recurrent across international governance frameworks: (1) Human oversight and clinical responsibility; (2) Patient autonomy, preferences, and proportionality; (3) Transparency and explainability; (4) Fairness, equity, and non-discrimination; and (5) Professional competence and ethical literacy. These domains were synthesised into practical ethical–regulatory considerations linking ethical principles with governance expectations and clinical implementation requirements. Conclusions: This study provides context-sensitive ethical–regulatory guidance that bridges high-level AI governance principles with the operational realities of palliative care rehabilitation. By systematising and operationalising existing ethical norms, the proposed framework supports responsible clinical decision-making, strengthens institutional accountability, and safeguards patient dignity and autonomy in vulnerable care contexts.