Robert Ranisch

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging development in the digital transformation of healthcare. Unlike conventional generative AI, agentic AI systems can perform autonomous, goal-directed actions and coordinate complex tasks. They promise to support or even collaborate with clinicians and patients in increasingly independent ways. While agentic AI raises familiar moral concerns regarding safety, accountability and bias, this article focuses on a less explored dimension: its capacity to transform the moral fabric of healthcare itself. Drawing on the framework of techno-moral change and the three domains of decision, relation and perception, we investigate how agentic AI might reshape the patient–physician relationship and reconfigure core concepts of medical morality. We argue that these shifts, while not fully predictable, demand ethical attention before widespread deployment. Ultimately, the paper calls for integrating ethical foresight into the design and use of agentic AI.

Rentzepis et al. (2026) provide an insightful assessment of AI use for clinical trial recruitment with a special focus on best practices and ethical guidance for researchers and trial sponsors. Imp...

The uptake of social science methods by bioethics significantly expanded its methodological spectrum, raising new theoretical, methodological, and practical questions. Recently, we are witnessing another trend, adding advanced data science methods to bioethics’ toolkit to aid, for example, in online data analysis, support scholarly writing, and inform clinical ethics. This article explores the emerging field of Digital Bioethics across its dimensions by analysing the tangled relationship between topics and methods, highlighting intersections between Digital Bioethics and Bioethics of the Digital, and advocating for a methods-based definition of the field. The use of advanced data science methods within bioethics must be interpreted in the context of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care. At the same time, it presents unique opportunities and challenges. Defining, and thus demarcating, Digital Bioethics can create support for the new field but also requires navigating trade-offs. To do so, we take four kindred academic fields as points of comparison (Digital Humanities, Experimental Philosophical Bioethics, computational medicine and digitised biology) to analyse what each of them teaches for critically assessing and further developing Digital Bioethics. The article discusses potential pitfalls and concludes with recommendations on how the field can fully develop its potential to promote bioethical research and argument. Furthermore, the article discusses how a critical reflection of the use of AI methods within bioethics itself will also contribute to the ethical oversight of increasingly AI-driven branches of healthcare.

The emergence of agentic AI marks a new phase in the digital transformation of healthcare. Distinct from conventional generative AI, agentic AI systems are capable of autonomous, goal-directed actions and complex task coordination. They promise to support or even collaborate with clinicians and patients in increasingly independent ways. While agentic AI raises familiar moral concerns regarding safety, accountability, and bias, this article focuses on a less explored dimension: its capacity to transform the moral fabric of healthcare itself. Drawing on the framework of techno-moral change and the three domains of decision, relation and perception, we investigate how agentic AI might reshape the patient-physician relationship and reconfigure core concepts of medical morality. We argue that these shifts, while not fully predictable, demand ethical attention before widespread deployment. Ultimately, the paper calls for integrating ethical foresight into the design and use of agentic AI.

Background: The use of remote methods such as video conferencing has the potential to improve access to ethics consultations, particularly in outpatient and rural healthcare settings. Although their use has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about ethics consultants’ experiences with remote consultations so far. Methods: We conducted three focus groups with 14 certified ethics consultants in Germany in October 2024 to investigate their experiences with, and attitudes towards, remote ethics consultations. The data was analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants reported experiences with a range of remote methods, including email and phone for short consultations, and videoconferencing for full ethics consultations. Videoconferencing was primarily used when in-person meetings were not feasible. Attitudes towards video-based consultations varied, and consultants with more experience with this technology tended to view it more favourably. Reported advantages included improved accessibility, especially in rural areas, easier scheduling, and the ability to involve additional stakeholders. Disadvantages included technical challenges and concerns about privacy. Participants reported that video-based ethics consultations reduce non-verbal communication and emotional expression. According to some, this made video consultations more structured and egalitarian, while others found this disadvantageous. Participants emphasised the need for specific preparation for video-based ethics consultations, such as ensuring adequate technical set-up or assigning roles to monitor emotional dynamics. Possible challenges regarding the involvement of patients and relatives in remote consultations were noted. While some participants viewed remote formats as more suitable for less emotionally intense cases, others saw no inherent limitations regarding consultation topics. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that ethics consultants regard video-based remote consultations as a viable alternative when in-person meetings are not feasible. The study identified specific communicative challenges that should be addressed in future training for ethics consultants. Further research is needed to ensure that the implementation of remote ethics consultation can realise its advantages and mitigate possible disadvantages. This includes exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives.

The use of social robotics in care for older persons is increasingly discussed as one way of meeting emerging care needs due to scarce resources. While many potential benefits are associated with robotic care technologies, there is a variety of ethical challenges. To support steps towards a responsible implementation and use, this review develops an overview on ethical aspects of the use of social robots in care for older people from a decision-makers’ perspective. Electronic databases were queried using a comprehensive search strategy based on the key concepts of “ethical aspects”, “social robotics” and “elderly care”. Abstract and title screening was conducted by two authors independently. Full-text screening was conducted by one author following a joint consolidation phase. Data was extracted using MAXQDA24 by one author, based on a consolidated coding framework. Analysis was performed through modified qualitative content analysis. A total of 1,518 publications were screened, and 248 publications were included. We have organized our analysis in a scheme of ethical hazards, ethical opportunities and unsettled questions, identifying at least 60 broad ethical aspects affecting three different stakeholder groups. While some ethical issues are well-known and broadly discussed our analysis shows a plethora of potentially relevant aspects, often only marginally recognized, that are worthy of consideration from a practical perspective. The findings highlight the need for a contextual and detailed evaluation of implementation scenarios. To make use of the vast knowledge of the ethical discourse, we hypothesize that decision-makers need to understand the specific nature of this discourse to be able to engage in careful ethical deliberation.

Multimodal digital biomarkers (MDBs) integrate diverse physiological, behavioral, and contextual data to provide continuous representations of health. This paper argues that MDBs expand the concept of digital biomarkers along the dimensions of variability, complexity and abstraction, producing an ontological shift that datafies health and an epistemic shift that redefines health relevance. These transformations entail ethical implications for knowledge, responsibility, and governance in data-driven, preventive medicine.