Increasing acceptance of medical AI: The role of medical staff participation in AI development.

BACKGROUND: Medical artificial intelligence (AI) in varying degrees has exerted significant influence on many medical fields, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known regarding how to address the reluctance of medical staff to use AI technology. While recent research has highlighted the importance of medical staff participation in the development of AI, the current understanding of influence of medical staff participation on acceptance of AI is limited. OBJECTIVES: To provide insights into the mechanism that how medical staff participation impacts on the medical staff's acceptance of AI and to examine the moderating effect of speciesism. METHODS: This study was conducted from 6th August to 3rd September. Data was collected from doctors and nurses and a total of 288 valid questionnaires were obtained. Smart PLS 3.2.8 was used as partial least square (PLS) software to validate the research model. RESULTS: The study determined that medical staff participation had a significant impact on acceptance of medical AI-IDT (ß = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001) and acceptance of medical AI-ADT (ß = 0.44, p ≤ 0.001). The results also show that AI self-efficacy and AI anxiety have significant mediating effects and speciesism has significant moderating effects among the theoretical model. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into ways to explore influence factors of acceptance of AI based on user participation perspective. The results indicate that medical staff participation enhances acceptance of medical AI through the cognitive path (i.e., AI self-efficacy) and the affective path (i.e., AI anxiety). These results have practical implications for how organizations assist the staff to accommodate themselves to AI technology in the future.

Cover Stories: Concealing Speciesist Violence in U.S. News Reporting on the COVID-19 “Pork” Industry Crisis

With a focus on journalistic discourse, this paper argues for a re-envisioning of food-system communication that takes non-human animals into account as stakeholders in systems that commodify them. This is especially urgent in light of the global pandemic, which has laid bare the vulnerability to crisis inherent in animal-based food production. As a case study to illustrate the need for a just and non-human inclusive orientation to food-systems communication, the paper performs a qualitative rhetorical examination, of a series of articles in major U.S. news sources in May of 2020, a few months into the economic shutdown in the U.S. in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, millions of pigs were brutally killed on U.S. farms due to the impossibility of killing them in slaughterhouses overrun with COVID-19 outbreaks. The analysis finds that media reporting legitimated violence against pigs by framing narratives from industry perspectives, deflecting agency for violence away from farmers, presenting pigs as willing victims, masking violence through euphemism, objectifying pigs and ignoring their sentience, and uncritically propagating industry rhetoric about “humane” farming. Through these representations, it is argued, the media failed in their responsibility to present the viewpoints of all sentient beings affected by the crisis;in other words, all stakeholders. The methodology merges a textually-oriented approach to critical discourse analysis (CDA) with social critique informed by critical animal studies (CAS), and the essay concludes with recommendations for journalists and other food-system communicators, which should be possible to implement even given the current capitalist, industry-influenced media environment and the demonstrated ruthlessness of animal industries in silencing voices inimical to their profitmaking. Copyright © 2022 Barca.

Health justice in the Anthropocene: medical ethics and the Land Ethic.

Industrialisation, urbanisation and economic development have produced unprecedented (if unevenly distributed) improvements in human health. They have also produced unprecedented exploitation of Earth's life support systems, moving the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene-one defined by human influence on natural systems. The health sector has been complicit in this influence. Bioethics, too, must acknowledge its role-the environmental threats that will shape human health in this century represent a 'perfect moral storm' challenging the ethical theories of the last. The US conservationist Aldo Leopold saw this gathering storm more clearly than many, and in his Land Ethic describes the beginnings of a route to safe passage. Its starting point is a reinterpretation of the ethical relationship between humanity and the 'land community', the ecosystems we live within and depend upon; moving us from 'conqueror' to 'plain member and citizen' of that community. The justice of the Land Ethic questions many presuppositions implicit to discussions of the topic in biomedical ethics. By valuing the community in itself-in a way irreducible to the welfare of its members-it steps away from the individualism axiomatic in contemporary bioethics. Viewing ourselves as citizens of the land community also extends the moral horizons of healthcare from a solely human focus. Taking into account the 'stability' of the community requires intergenerational justice. The resulting vision of justice in healthcare-one that takes climate and environmental justice seriously-could offer health workers an ethic fit for the future.