Share
PDFCommentary
Are physicians requesting a second opinion really engaging in a reason-giving dialectic? Normative questions on the standards for second opinions and AI
Share this article
Click the icon of the social media platform on which you would like to share this article.
Email this article to a friend
Other content recommended for you
- Responsibility, second opinions and peer-disagreement: ethical and epistemological challenges of using AI in clinical diagnostic contexts
- Agree to disagree: the symmetry of burden of proof in human–AI collaboration
- Second opinion programmes in Germany: a mixed-methods study protocol
- AI decision-support: a dystopian future of machine paternalism?
- Patient-initiated second medical consultations—patient characteristics and motivating factors, impact on care and satisfaction: a systematic review
- Second opinion utilization by healthcare insurance type in a mixed private-public healthcare system: a population-based study
- Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies
- AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care
- The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer
- Virtuosic craft or clerical labour: the rise of the electronic health record and challenges to physicians’ professional identity (1950–2022)