CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 294Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEmpathy and Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In principle obstacles for empathic AI: why we can’t replace human empathy in healthcare

Open access
Montemayor, Carlos, Halpern, Jodi, Fairweather, Abrol·2022·AI & SOCIETY
DOI 10.1007/s00146-021-01230-zPMC PMC8149918
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What are the limits of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the relational aspects of medical and nursing care? There has been a lot of recent work and applications showing the promise and efficiency of AI in clinical medicine, both at the research and treatment levels. Many of the obstacles discussed in the literature are technical in character, regarding how to improve and optimize current practices in clinical medicine and also how to develop better data bases for optimal parameter adjustments and predictive algorithms. This paper argues that there are also in principle obstacles to the application of AI in clinical medicine and care where empathy is important, and that these problems cannot be solved with any of the technical and theoretical approaches that shape the current application of AI in specific areas of clinical medicine in which care for patients is fundamental. This is important, because it generates specific risks that may be overlooked otherwise, and it justifies the necessity of human monitoring and emotional intervention in clinical medicine. Consequently, difficult issues concerning moral and legal responsibility may ensue if these in principle problems are ignored.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-021-01230-z

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. de Waal F (2019) Mama’s last hug: animal emotions and what they tell us about ourselves. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 294

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Montemayor, C., Halpern, J., & Fairweather, A.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Montemayor, Carlos
ORCID
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-05-26
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
1353-1359
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
DOI
10.1007/s00146-021-01230-z
PMC
PMC8149918
OpenAlex
W3165373184
Cited by
293
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5
FWCI
7.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, empathy, nursing care, relational care, AI limitations, human monitoring, emotional intervention, moral responsibility, legal responsibility, patient care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review