From: The ethical requirement of explainability for AI-DSS in healthcare: a systematic review of reasons
Position | Core Argument | References |
---|---|---|
The use of xAI or ad-hoc explainable models is not a default requirement for AI-DSS to be ethically permissible in healthcare | Medical decisions are commonly atheoretic as well (double standard argument) | |
Post-Hoc explainability methods add new levels of uncertainty and may cause false confidence | ||
There can be a trade-off between accuracy and explainability | ||
Explainability is not required to resolve problems of responsibility | ||
Explainability is not required and not sufficient for the detection of biases | ||
Trust, acceptance, and uptake are feasible by transparency | ||
Shared decision-making, informed consent, and patient autonomy are feasible with transparency | ||
The duty of HCPs to explain risks and benefits of the medical procedures is satisfiable by transparency | ||
The associated risks of AI-DSS determine the requirement of explainability standards | ||
The capacities and values of the patients and HCPs determine the requirement of explainability standards | ||
Potential benefits and lack of alternatives may outweigh the concerns associated with less explainable decisions | ||
The use of xAI or ad-hoc explainable models is a default requirement for AI-DSS to be ethically permissible in healthcare | The double-standard argument is an inapt comparison | |
Explainability reduces the risk of false hope and inappropriate interventions | [50] | |
The accuracy/explainability trade-off is only claimed but not substantiated | ||
Explainability is a requirement for accountability or the attribution of responsibility | ||
Explainability can help to find biases | ||
A lack of explainability threatens trust, acceptance, and uptake | ||
Explainability is a requirement for shared decision-making, informed consent, and patient autonomy | ||
Explainability increases HCP autonomy | [54] | |
Explainability is required to account for patient-values |