Radio detection and ranging-based (radar) sensing offers unique opportunities for biomedical monitoring and can help overcome the limitations of currently established solutions. Due to its contactless and unobtrusive measurement principle, it can facilitate the longitudinal recording of human physiology and can help to bridge the gap from laboratory to real-world assessments. However, radar sensors typically yield complex and multidimensional data that are hard to interpret without domain expertise. Machine learning (ML) algorithms can be trained to extract meaningful information from radar data for medical experts, enhancing not only diagnostic capabilities but also contributing to advancements in disease prevention and treatment. However, until now, the two aspects of radar-based data acquisition and ML-based data processing have mostly been addressed individually and not as part of a holistic and end-to-end data analysis pipeline. For this reason, we present a tutorial on radar-based ML applications for biomedical monitoring that equally emphasizes both dimensions. We highlight the fundamentals of radar and ML theory, data acquisition and representation and outline categories of clinical relevance. Since the contactless and unobtrusive nature of radar-based sensing also raises novel ethical concerns regarding biomedical monitoring, we additionally present a discussion that carefully addresses the ethical aspects of this novel technology, particularly regarding data privacy, ownership, and potential biases in ML algorithms.

Background: Palliative care is an integral part of health care, which in term has become increasingly technologized in recent decades. Lately, innovative smart sensors combined with artificial intelligence promise better diagnosis and treatment. But to date, it is unclear: how are palliative care concepts and their underlying assumptions about humans challenged by smart sensor technologies (SST) and how can care benefit from SST? Aims: The paper aims to identify changes and challenges in palliative care due to the use of SST. In addition, normative guiding criteria for the use of SST are developed. Methods: The principle of Total Care used by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) forms the basis for the ethical analysis. Drawing on this, its underlying conceptions of the human and its socio-ethical aspects are examined with a phenomenological focus. In the second step, the advantages, limitations, and socio-ethical challenges of using SST with respect to the Total Care principle are explored. Finally, ethical-normative requirements for the application of SST are derived. Results and Conclusion: First, SST are limited in their measurement capabilities. Second, SST have an impact on human agency and autonomy. This concerns both the patient and the caregiver. Third, some aspects of the Total Care principle are likely to be marginalized due to the use of SST. The paper formulates normative requirements for using SST to serve human flourishing. It unfolds three criteria according to which SST must be aligned: (1) evidence and purposefulness, (2) autonomy, and (3) Total Care.

Harnessing the metaverse for medical and healthcare purposes is currently heralded as the “next frontier in healthcare.” However, to ensure the “amazing possibilities” of the so-called “healthcare metaverse” can be fully realized, it’s vital to proactively identify and address potential challenges, especially those of an ethical nature. This paper aims to spotlight these ethical challenges within the healthcare metaverse and chart a course for confronting these issues and cultivating an ethics framework for this emerging field. We will demonstrate that the ethical quandaries within the healthcare metaverse bear striking similarities to those seen in digital medicine, an arena that grapples with vast quantities of data and the application of artificial intelligence. Reflecting on these parallels, we explore how six central ethical challenges in digital medicine – 1) accessibility, 2) fairness, 3) discrimination and bias, 4) responsibility, 5) privacy, data safety and security, and data ownership, as well as 6) environmental issues – unfold within the healthcare metaverse’s virtual boundaries and show that the metaverse’s immersive nature further intensifies these ethical challenges. In view of this, we advocate that the next phase in forging ethics for the healthcare metaverse involves a nuanced reconsideration of current ethical methods and principles in digital medicine, with an emphasis on the immersive element of the metaverse. We foresee the concept of embodiment within virtual settings to be at the heart of this immersion-focused reassessment.

Since uncertainty is a major challenge in medicine and bears the risk of causing incorrect diagnoses and harmful treatment, there are many efforts to tackle it. For some time, AI technologies have been increasingly implemented in medicine and used to reduce medical uncertainties. What initially seems desirable, however, poses challenges. We use a multimethod approach that combines philosophical inquiry, conceptual analysis, and ethical considerations to identify key challenges that arise when AI is used for medical certainty purposes. We identify several challenges. Where AI is used to reduce medical uncertainties, it is likely to result in (a) patients being stripped down to their measurable data points, and being made disambiguous. Additionally, the widespread use of AI technologies in health care bears the risk of (b) human physicians being pushed out of the medical decision-making process, and patient participation being more and more limited. Further, the successful use of AI requires extensive and invasive monitoring of patients, which raises (c) questions about surveillance as well as privacy and security issues. We outline these several challenges and show that they are immediate consequences of AI-driven security efforts. If not addressed, they could entail unfavorable consequences. We contend that diminishing medical uncertainties through AI involves a tradeoff. The advantages, including enhanced precision, personalization, and overall improvement in medicine, are accompanied by several novel challenges. This paper addresses them and gives suggestions about how to use AI for certainty purposes without causing harm to patients.

The use of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in health care opens up new opportunities for the measurement of the human. Their application aims not only at gathering more and better data points but also at doing it less invasive. With this change in health care towards its extension to almost all areas of life and its increasing invisibility and opacity, new questions of transparency arise. While the complex human-machine interactions involved in deploying and using AI tend to become non-transparent, the use of these technologies makes the patient seemingly transparent. Papers on the ethical implementation of AI plead for transparency but neglect the factor of the “transparent patient” as intertwined with AI. Transparency in this regard appears to be Janus-faced: The precondition for receiving help - e.g., treatment advice regarding the own health - is to become transparent for the digitized health care system. That is, for instance, to donate data and become visible to the AI and its operators. The paper reflects on this entanglement of transparent patients and (non-) transparent technology. It argues that transparency regarding both AI and humans is not an ethical principle per se but an infraethical concept. Further, it is no sufficient basis for avoiding harm and human dignity violations. Rather, transparency must be enriched by intelligibility following Judith Butler’s use of the term. Intelligibility is understood as an epistemological presupposition for recognition and the ensuing humane treatment. Finally, the paper highlights ways to testify intelligibility in dealing with AI in health care ex ante, ex post, and continuously.

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) apps promise to enhance patient empowerment, enable real-time health monitoring, and support self-management. Patients with breast cancer stand to benefit particularly from these capabilities, given the demanding pre- and posttreatment procedures they face. However, the effective adoption of these tools is challenged by issues including accessibility, usability limitations, and privacy concerns. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the current usage behavior and attitudes toward mHealth apps among patients with breast cancer in Germany, focusing on acceptance, usefulness, empowerment, and data-sharing. Specifically, we aimed to identify the incentives and barriers influencing use and the intention to use mHealth apps at the time of this writing to guide their further implementation and use. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between November 2023 and June 2024 using a structured questionnaire developed in German. Participants with a self-reported breast cancer diagnosis were recruited via university hospital channels, patient associations, and social media. Topics included technology and health app usage, perceived usefulness, personal empowerment, and attitudes toward data sharing. The survey comprised both closed- and open-ended questions to capture quantitative patterns and qualitative insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives. Results: We collected responses from 90 participants with breast cancer. Participants demonstrated high engagement with digital technology; 97% (87/90) reported daily smartphone use, and 70% (63/90) owned a smartwatch or fitness tracker. Approximately 67% (60/90) of respondents had used health apps in the past year, with many relying on general fitness and lifestyle apps to support their health management. Most participants (62/90, 69%) indicated that health apps contribute to a better understanding of their personal health. Health apps were generally perceived as useful, with users highlighting their ability to provide continuous support and timely, reliable health information (n=31). This, in turn, was seen as instrumental in promoting self-management and empowerment. Respondents also showed a conditional willingness to share personal health data for research, particularly when clear benefits for treatment advancements were evident (n=82). Nonetheless, concerns were raised regarding data privacy, app usability, the need for multiple apps to cover all necessary features, and the potential increase in fear of illness (cyberchondria). Conclusions: The findings underscore the potential of mHealth apps to empower patients with breast cancer by improving health literacy and supporting self-management. To maximize their impact, future digital health tools must align closely with patient needs by incorporating adaptive, interactive features and integrating seamlessly with clinical care. Addressing key barriers—particularly data privacy and usability issues—is essential for broader adoption. Longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term effects of health app usage on patient empowerment, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.