Autonomy, Self-Governance, and Moral Principles in the Armed Forces
=========================================================================================================
In the latest issue of the American Journal of Bioethics, Sally J. Scholz, PhD, discusses the ethical implications of AI depression detector tools, particularly in the context of the military and healthcare institutions.
The revised account of health-related autonomy (HRDA) offers crucial correctives in the era of digital data, but additional considerations are needed for institutions where autonomy is compromised. This is especially true for the military, where members join voluntarily but still have a responsibility for their health and well-being.
Just war theory, a dominant framework in the ethics of war, aims at preserving the rights of the innocent and avoiding unnecessary harm. In this context, a human rights-based approach to just war theory includes a defense of the basic rights of soldiers, including the rights to security, subsistence, liberty, equality, and recognition. However, contemporary challenges to human dignity in the ethics of war include the delegation of decisions, such as the decision to kill, to artificial intelligence.
In the realm of healthcare, providing care in institutional settings should be about creating conditions in which all members are supported by a system that encourages reflection on emotional states prior to and after traumatic events. Resources, rather than merely tools, should be available.
The use of AI tools within institutional contexts where autonomy is already compromised risks expanding control and further eroding autonomy. For instance, the use of AI in mental health diagnostics within institutions could create perverse incentives, minimizing outlays of resources and maximizing the utility of the personnel.
Moreover, digital diagnostic tools, whether through social media or wearables, often prioritize efficiency over other considerations. This could be problematic, as AI tools may trade efficient diagnoses for conscientious reasoning within sociocultural contexts, affecting the reflective thinking expected of just warriors.
Within institutions of compromised autonomy, the use of AI depression detector tools risks entrenching a system of response to mental health problems that emphasizes the individual while systemic problems go unnoticed. This is particularly true in the military, where the fear of stigma and potential career ramifications means that many military personnel will not accept the risks of AI depression detector tools, potentially leading to many more people who need mental health resources not receiving them.
On the other hand, diagnostic technology may provide a lifesaving intervention for soldiers or veterans suffering from depression or PTSD. It could facilitate greater attention to mental health concerns in the field and help alleviate some of the burden on the veterans' health system.
Institutions such as the military, healthcare organizations, and research institutions can influence the ethics discourse by setting standards, ensuring transparency, and addressing the implications of AI use in sensitive areas like mental health and military applications. HRDA for AI depression detector tools in the context of the military would require regularly scheduled opt-in agreements, which pose problems of consent fatigue.
In conclusion, while AI depression detector tools hold promise for improving mental health care, particularly in the military and healthcare settings, they also pose significant ethical challenges. It is crucial for these institutions to consider these challenges and take steps to ensure that the use of AI in mental health diagnostics is ethical, transparent, and respectful of individuals' autonomy and dignity.
