Beyond bias and discrimination: redefining the AI ethics principle of fairness in healthcare machine-learning algorithms
Open accessAbstract
The increasing implementation of and reliance on machine-learning (ML) algorithms to perform tasks, deliver services and make decisions in health and healthcare have made the need for fairness in ML, and more specifically in healthcare ML algorithms (HMLA), a very important and urgent task. However, while the debate on fairness in the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) and in HMLA has grown significantly over the last decade, the very concept of fairness as an ethical value has not yet been sufficiently explored. Our paper aims to fill this gap and address the AI ethics principle of fairness from a conceptual standpoint, drawing insights from accounts of fairness elaborated in moral philosophy and using them to conceptualise fairness as an ethical value and to redefine fairness in HMLA accordingly. To achieve our goal, following a first section aimed at clarifying the background, methodology and structure of the paper, in the second section, we provide an overview of the discussion of the AI ethics principle of fairness in HMLA and show that the concept of fairness underlying this debate is framed in purely distributive terms and overlaps with non-discrimination, which is defined in turn as the absence of biases. After showing that this framing is inadequate, in the third section, we pursue an ethical inquiry into the concept of fairness and argue that fairness ought to be conceived of as an ethical value. Following a clarification of the relationship between fairness and non-discrimination, we show that the two do not overlap and that fairness requires much more than just non-discrimination. Moreover, we highlight that fairness not only has a distributive but also a socio-relational dimension. Finally, we pinpoint the constitutive components of fairness. In doing so, we base our arguments on a renewed reflection on the concept of respect, which goes beyond the idea of equal respect to include respect for individual persons. In the fourth section, we analyse the implications of our conceptual redefinition of fairness as an ethical value in the discussion of fairness in HMLA. Here, we claim that fairness requires more than non-discrimination and the absence of biases as well as more than just distribution; it needs to ensure that HMLA respects persons both as persons and as particular individuals. Finally, in the fifth section, we sketch some broader implications and show how our inquiry can contribute to making HMLA and, more generally, AI promote the social good and a fairer society.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 97 · Cited by 193
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Barocas S (2014) Data mining and the discourse on discrimination. In: Proceedings of the Data Ethics Workshop, Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD). https://dataethics.github.io/proceedings/DataMiningandtheDiscourseOnDiscrimination.pdf. Retrieved March 10 2021
- Dieterich B, Mendoza C., Brennan T (2016) COMPAS risk scales: demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity performance of the COMPAS risk scales in broward county. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/COMPAS-Risk-Scales-%3A-Demonstrating-Accuracy-Equity/cb6a2c110f9fe675799c6aefe1082bb6390fdf49. Retrieved March 11, 2021
- Friedler S, Scheidegger C, Venkatasubramanian S (2016) On the (im)possibility of fairness. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308610093_On_the_impossibility_of_fairness/citation/download. Retrieved March 11, 2021
- Friedman B Hendry DG Borning A A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends® Human Comput Interact 2017 11 2 63 125 10.1561/110000001 · DOI
- Goh G, Cotter A, Gupta M, Friedlander MP (2016) Satisfying real-world goals with dataset con- straints. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp 2415–2423. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2016/file/dc4c44f624d600aa568390f1f1104aa0-Paper.pdf
- Pariser E The filter bubble 2011 New York Penguin
- Pleiss G, Raghavan M, Wu F, Kleinberg J, Weinberger KQ (2017) On fairness and calibration. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'17). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, pp 5684–5693.
- Rawls J A theory of justice 1971 Cambridge Harvard University Press
- Richardson R, Schultz J, Crawford K (2019) Dirty data, bad predictions: how civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice. N.Y.U. L. Review 94(192). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333423. Retrieved March 10, 2021
- Scheffler S (2003) What is egalitarianism?. Philos Public Affairs 31(1): 5–39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558033. Retrieved March 11, 2021
- Waldron J One another’s equal. The basis of human equality 2017 Cambridge Harvard University Press
- Authors
- Giovanola, B., & Tiribelli, S.
- Affiliations
- Tufts University (US)
- University of Macerata (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Giovanola, Benedetta
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2022-05-21
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 549-563
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- PMC
- PMC9123626
- OpenAlex
- W4281254423
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 42.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2023-07-20)
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- U-PAD Unimc - Open Digital Publications (University of Macerata) (submittedVersion)
- U-PAD Unimc - Open Digital Publications (University of Macerata) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- European Commission (952357)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- fairness, AI ethics, non-discrimination, algorithmic bias, moral values, respect for persons, distributive justice
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