Litteraturliste

Sikkerhet

Etikk

Oppsummering scite

Kiran, A.H. (2017), Mediating patienthood—from an ethics of to an ethics with technology. Nurs Philos,18:e12153

⁠

Doi⁠

⁠

The changes that happen to healthcare services after the implementation of new assistive healthcare technologies (also called ‘welfare technology’ in the Nordic countries) concern more than increased efficiency and reducing healthcare expenditure. Of particular interest from an ethical point of view are the manners in which technologies shape the roles and identities of care receivers and healthcare personnel. The notion of ‘patienthood’ is explored in this paper as something that is both challenged by new technologies, and as something that is opened up for active and potentially positive reshaping when care receivers support their illness or frailty with assistive healthcare technologies. This dual effect of technologies (as both challenge and opportunity) requires a rethinking of ethics of technologies, which for most part have been preoccupied with ethical issues prior to the implementation of a new technology into a healthcare service. Ethics of technology should also contribute to the concrete efforts of care receivers to establish something approximating a ‘good patienthood’ in relation to a new technology, making it opportune to dub it, instead, an ethics with technology. This paper explores how assistive healthcare technologies impact on care receivers and the care situation, and in relation to the notion of patienthood, before turning to what this implies for an ethics that has as its goal to support care receivers to reach a life with the technology that is in line with their own notions of well-being and a good life.

Ok, her er et mulig eksempel på en sammenligning og kontrast mellom to artikler:

Hallowell et al. (2019) og Mittelstadt et al. (2020) bruker begge en kvalitativ metode for å utforske de etiske implikasjonene av å bruke lukket sløyfe insulinpumper for personer med diabetes type 1. De har noen likheter i sine funn, som at de identifiserer autonomi, ansvar, tillit og rettferdighet som viktige verdier som kan bli påvirket av denne teknologien. De har også noen forskjeller i sine implikasjoner, som at Hallowell et al. (2019) foreslår noen konkrete retningslinjer for å sikre at lukket sløyfe insulinpumper respekterer og støtter pasientenes verdighet, preferanser og velferd, mens Mittelstadt et al. (2020) gir en mer generell og teoretisk diskusjon av de etiske utfordringene ved kunstig intelligens i diabetesomsorgen. En mulig forklaring på disse forskjellene er at Hallowell et al. (2019) baserer seg på empiriske data fra intervjuer med pasienter, pårørende og helsepersonell som har erfaring med lukket sløyfe insulinpumper, mens Mittelstadt et al. (2020) baserer seg på litteraturgjennomgang og etisk analyse av ulike scenarier som involverer kunstig intelligens i diabetesomsorgen.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.