Further remarks on testimonial injustice in medical machine learning: A response to commentaries

Giorgia Pozzi*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorScientificpeer-review

Abstract

In my paper entitled 'Testimonial injustice in medical machine learning',1 I argued that machine learning (ML)-based Prediction Drug Monitoring Programmes (PDMPs) could infringe on patients' epistemic and moral standing inflicting a testimonial injustice.2 I am very grateful for all the comments the paper received, some of which expand on it while others take a more critical view. This response addresses two objections raised to my consideration of ML-induced testimonial injustice in order to clarify the position taken in the paper. The first maintains that my critical stance toward ML-based PDMPs idealises standard medical practice. Moreover, it claims that the ML-induced testimonial injustice I discuss is not substantially different from situations in which it emerges in human-human interactions. The second claims that my analysis does not establish a link to issues of automation bias, even if these are to be considered the core of testimonial injustice in ML.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberjme-2023-109302
Number of pages2
JournalJournal of medical ethics
Volume49
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023

Keywords

  • Ethics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Further remarks on testimonial injustice in medical machine learning: A response to commentaries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this