Artificial intelligence in medicine: trust it or (merely) rely on it?

Abstract Problem Trust and trustworthiness are usually highly valued in modern medicine. These phenomena are seen as components of a good patient–doctor relationship (P-D-R). In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), they are important regulatory reference points. However, it is not entirely clear what we mean when we talk about trust or trustworthiness in these areas. Argumentation It therefore seems worthwhile to explore the meaning of these terms and the implications for debates in medical ethics. It is argued here that trust involves a complex, noncontrolling, interpersonal attitude implying that predicating trust on nonpersonal entities—such as AI—is a kind of category mistake. In the context of evaluating AI, reliability is a much more appropriate candidate. Conclusion In turn, the reliability of AI should be proven and controlled in according to the idea of technovigilance, especially with a system view, which implies the control of humans in the loop, i.e., doctors. However, this technovigilance-related control of doctors does not undermine a good P‑D‑R in which trust can have a good place.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethik in der Medizin
Published
2025-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-025-00872-7
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial intelligence in medicine: trust it or (merely) rely on it?

Susanne Hiekel
Ethik in der Medizin
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Artificial intelligence in medicine: trust it or (merely) rely on it?

Susanne Hiekel
article en

Abstract

Abstract Problem Trust and trustworthiness are usually highly valued in modern medicine. These phenomena are seen as components of a good patient–doctor relationship (P-D-R). In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), they are important regulatory reference points. However, it is not entirely clear what we mean when we talk about trust or trustworthiness in these areas. Argumentation It therefore seems worthwhile to explore the meaning of these terms and the implications for debates in medical ethics. It is argued here that trust involves a complex, noncontrolling, interpersonal attitude implying that predicating trust on nonpersonal entities—such as AI—is a kind of category mistake. In the context of evaluating AI, reliability is a much more appropriate candidate. Conclusion In turn, the reliability of AI should be proven and controlled in according to the idea of technovigilance, especially with a system view, which implies the control of humans in the loop, i.e., doctors. However, this technovigilance-related control of doctors does not undermine a good P‑D‑R in which trust can have a good place.

Ethik in der MedizinVol. 37(4)
University of Münster (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Artificial intelligence in medicine: trust it or (merely) rely on it? — Susanne Hiekel · Ethik in der Medizin (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS