Search results

The purpose of this paper is to illuminate the ethical concerns associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical sector and to provide solutions that allow deriving maximum benefits from this technology without compromising ethical principles.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of AI in medicine, exploring its technical capabilities, practical applications, and ethical implications. Based on our expertise, we offer insights from both technical and practical perspectives.

The study identifies several advantages of AI in medicine, including its ability to improve diagnostic accuracy, enhance surgical outcomes, and optimize healthcare delivery. However, there are pending ethical issues such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, data privacy issues, and the potential for AI to deskill healthcare professionals and erode humanistic values in patient care. Therefore, it is important to address these issues as promptly as possible to make sure that we benefit from the AI’s implementation without causing any serious drawbacks.

This paper gains its value from the combined practical experience of Professor Elhassan gained through his practice at top hospitals worldwide, and the theoretical expertise of Dr. Arabi acquired from international institutes. The shared experiences of the authors provide valuable insights that are beneficial for raising awareness and guiding action in addressing the ethical concerns associated with the integration of artificial intelligence in medicine.

This study aims to outline the role of causal attributions in consumer responses to irresponsible corporate behaviour. Specifically, this paper presents a moderated mediation model that explains how four types of perceived motives behind an irresponsible action shape corporate blame and word-of-mouth recommendations.

To test the hypotheses, the study uses data from a large survey assessing consumer reactions to a real case of corporate socially irresponsible behaviour in the banking industry.

The findings show that market-, unethicality- and rogue employee-driven attributions increase corporate blame and subsequently make people more likely to spread negative comments regarding the culprit. The difficult situation of a bank, as a perceived reason for wrongdoing, does not reduce the blame attributed to the irresponsible organisation.

The literature offers little information on the attributions people make following egregious corporate behaviour; however, such cognitions can play an important role in stakeholders’ reactions to wrongdoing. This study therefore extends the understanding of how irresponsibility attributions affect consumers’ responses to misbehaviour. Given the empirical context, the findings might be particularly important for communication and bank managers.