Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in healthcare, but its role in medical decision-making elicits varied reactions compared to decisions made by human doctors. A new study has explored the nuances of this acceptance, examining scenarios where the perceived morality of AI decisions differs from that of human choices.

The research, conducted at the University of Turku, Finland, indicates that individuals are less cozy with euthanasia decisions when they are made by AI or robots, compared to human physicians. The international study, which included participants from finland, Czechia, and Great Britain, presented subjects with medical case studies to gauge their moral judgments regarding end-of-life care for patients in comas.

University Lecturer Michael Laakasuo, the project’s Principal Investigator, describes this phenomenon as the “human-Robot moral judgement asymmetry effect,” where AI and robotic decisions are held to a higher moral standard than those made by humans.

However, it is still a scientific mystery in which decisions and situations the moral judgement asymmetry effect emerges. Our team studied various situational factors related to the emergence of this phenomenon and the acceptance of moral decisions.”

Michael Laakasuo,University of Turku

humans are perceived as more competent decision-makers

The study revealed that participants were less likely to accept euthanasia decisions made by AI or robots,regardless of whether the machine was in an advisory role or the primary decision-maker. Interestingly,when the decision involved maintaining life support,the asymmetry between human and AI decisions disappeared. However, participants showed a preference for decisions that favored turning off life support.

The disparity in acceptance diminished when the patient was conscious and explicitly requested euthanasia, such as through lethal injection. The research team suggests that this moral judgment asymmetry is partly due to the perception that AI is a less competent decision-maker than humans.

“AI’s ability to explain and justify its decisions was seen as limited, which may help explain why people accept AI into clinical roles less.”

the researchers noted that the perceived limitations in AI’s ability to explain and justify its decisions contribute to the reluctance in accepting AI in clinical roles.

Experiences with AI play an vital role

According to Laakasuo, the study’s findings underscore the importance of patient autonomy in the application of AI in healthcare. He emphasizes that understanding public perceptions and reactions is crucial for developing future AI systems that are morally acceptable.

“Our research highlights the complex nature of moral judgements when considering AI decision-making in medical care.People perceive AI’s involvement in decision-making vrey differently compared to when a human is in charge,” says Laakasuo.

“The implications of this research are significant as the role of AI in our society and medical care expands every day.”