Why we should talk about institutional (dis)trustworthiness and medical machine learning

Michiel De Proost*, Giorgia Pozzi

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The principle of trust has been placed at the centre as an attitude for engaging with clinical machine learning systems. However, the notions of trust and distrust remain fiercely debated in the philosophical and ethical literature. In this article, we proceed on a structural level ex negativo as we aim to analyse the concept of “institutional distrustworthiness” to achieve a proper diagnosis of how we should not engage with medical machine learning. First, we begin with several examples that hint at the emergence of a climate of distrust in the context of medical machine learning. Second, we introduce the concept of institutional trustworthiness based on an expansion of Hawley’s commitment account. Third, we argue that institutional opacity can undermine the trustworthiness of medical institutions and can lead to new forms of testimonial injustices. Finally, we focus on possible building blocks for repairing institutional distrustworthiness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)83-92
Number of pages10
JournalMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024

Bibliographical note

Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

Keywords

  • AI ethics
  • Epistemic injustice
  • Institutional distrustworthiness
  • Institutional opacity
  • Medical machine learning
  • Trust

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why we should talk about institutional (dis)trustworthiness and medical machine learning'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this