Cited by 44Ethics and bioethics in healthcareMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBioethics and Human Rights Issues

The Ethical Implications of Personal Health Monitoring

Open access
Mittelstadt, Brent, Fairweather, Ben, Shaw, Mark, McBride, Neil·2014·International Journal of Technoethics

Abstract

Personal Health Monitoring (PHM) uses electronic devices which monitor and record health-related data outside a hospital, usually within the home. This paper examines the ethical issues raised by PHM. Eight themes describing the ethical implications of PHM are identified through a review of 68 academic articles concerning PHM. The identified themes include privacy, autonomy, obtrusiveness and visibility, stigma and identity, medicalisation, social isolation, delivery of care, and safety and technological need. The issues around each of these are discussed. The system / lifeworld perspective of Habermas is applied to develop an understanding of the role of PHMs as mediators of communication between the institutional and the domestic environment. Furthermore, links are established between the ethical issues to demonstrate that the ethics of PHM involves a complex network of ethical interactions. The paper extends the discussion of the critical effect PHMs have on the patient's identity and concludes that a holistic understanding of the ethical issues surrounding PHMs will help both researchers and practitioners in developing effective PHM implementations.1

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 · 10.4018/ijt.2014070104

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • One risk presented by H-IoT is the simplification of health and patient care to parameters and processes that can be easily measured or automated.

    “One risk presented by H-IoT is the simplification of health and patient care to parameters and processes that can be easily measured or automated.”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Mittelstadt et al. 2014

  • H-IoT can limit assessment of a patient's condition to a narrow range of easily measurable or quantifiable considerations, which could bias assessment towards an overly optimistic prediction of the technology's effects.

    “H-IoT can limit assessment of a patient's condition to a narrow range of easily measurable or quantifiable considerations, which could bias assessment towards an overly optimistic prediction of the technology's effects (Mittelstadt et al. 2014;Coeckelbergh 2013).”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Mittelstadt et al. 2014

  • Institutions and physicians may be tempted to 'close down' discourses with patients by placing greater importance on 'objective' H-IoT monitoring data than the patient's subjective experience and voice.

    “Institutions and physicians may be tempted to 'close down' discourses with patients by placing greater importance on 'objective' H-IoT monitoring data than the patient's subjective experience and voice (Coeckelbergh 2013;Mittelstadt et al. 2014).”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Mittelstadt et al. 2014

  • Existing academic discourse tends to conceive of the ethical possibilities of H-IoT in terms of harms and benefits for individual patients, clinicians, developers or medical organisations.

    “Despite this, existing academic discourse tends to conceive of the ethical possibilities of H-IoT in terms of harms and benefits for individual patients, clinicians, developers or medical organisations (Mittelstadt et al. 2013(Mittelstadt et al. , 2014)).”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Mittelstadt et al. 2014

  • As a mediator placed between the physician and patient, H-IoT changes the dependencies between clinicians and patients by turning some degree of the patient's ongoing care over to a technological artefact.

    “As a mediator placed between the physician and patient (Mittelstadt et al. 2014), H-IoT changes the dependencies between clinicians and patients by turning some degree of the patient's ongoing care over to a technological artefact.”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Mittelstadt et al. 2014

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Martin, S., Cunningham, C., & Nugent, C. (2007). Ethical Considerations for Integrating Technol- ogy. Alzheimer's Care Today, 8, 251-258. doi: doi:10.1097/01.ALCAT.0000281873.66023. · DOI
  2. Mittelstadt, B., Fairweather, N. B., McBride, N., & Shaw, M. (2013). Privacy, Risk and Personal Health Monitoring. ETHICOMP 2013 Conference Proceed- ings (pp. 340-351).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mittelstadt, B., Fairweather, B., Shaw, M., & McBride, N.
Affiliations
De Montfort University (GB)
Venue
International Journal of Technoethics
Published
2014-07-01
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
37-60
ISSN
  • 1947-3451 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-346X
OpenAlex
W2005467228
Cited by
44
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
ng
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • International Journal of Technoethics (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Bioethics and Human Rights Issues
Keywords
personal health monitoring, ethics of health technology, privacy, patient autonomy, obtrusiveness, stigma, medicalization, social isolation, health care delivery, patient identity, home monitoring devices

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