Need for eHealth Ethics

  • Minna M. RantanenEmail author
  • Juhani Naskali
  • Jani Koskinen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 907)


The healthcare is an area where ethics has justifiably gained a central position, and this fact has acted as a safeguard for people and society. However, the increasing use of information technology has brought forth new kind of situations that the traditional medical ethics approach has not faced before. There is need for a new approach of eHealth ethics that covers the needs for modern healthcare to ensure that the ethicality will be ensured today and future likewise. We argue that a fruitful approach for this is the synthesis of traditional medical ethics and IS-ethics. In this article we look the four principles of medical ethics together with IS-ethics approaches by Moor and Brey to see what kind of values should be protected and what are the needs for justified use of information technology in healthcare.


eHealth Ethics Values New approach 


  1. 1.
    Nguyen, L., Bellucci, E., Nguyen, L.T.: Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83(11), 779–796 (2014).
  2. 2.
    Murray, E., et al.: Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implement. Sci. 6(1), 6 (2011). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ammenwerth, E., et al.: Impact of CPOE on mortality rates-contradictory findings, important messages. Methods Inf. Med. 45, 586–594 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meeks, D.W., Smith, M.W., Taylor, L., Sittig, D.F., Scott, J.M., Singh, H.: An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21(6), 1053–1059 (2014). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larsen, E., Fong, A., Wernz, C., Ratwani, R.M.: Implications of electronic health record down time: an analysis of patient safety event reports. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. ocx057 (2017).
  6. 6.
    Lyytinen, K., Hirschheim, R.: Information systems as rational discourse: an application of Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Scand. J. Manag. 4(1), 19–30 (1988).
  7. 7.
    Lyytinen, K., Newman, M.: Explaining information systems change: a punctuated sociotechnical change model. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(6), 589–613 (2008).
  8. 8.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F., Zhang, J., Gil-García, J.R., Cresswell, A.M.: Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: a practice approach. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14(1), 93–105 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mumford, E.: The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 16(4), 317–342 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brey, P.: The strategic role of technology in a good society. Technol. Soc. 52, 39–45 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nissenbaum, H.: How computer systems embody values. Computer 34(3), 118–119 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tavani, H.T.: Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koskinen, J.S., Heimo, O.I., Kimppa, K.K.: A viewpoint for more ethical approach in healthcare information system development and procurement: the four principles. In: Eriksson-Backa, K., Luoma, A., Krook, E. (eds.) WIS 2012. CCIS, vol. 313, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A., Huldtgren, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M. (eds.) Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, vol. 16, pp. 55–95. Springer, Dordrecht (2013). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kangasniemi, M., Pakkanen, P., Korhonen, A.: Professional ethics in nursing: an integrative review. J. Adv. Nurs. 71(8), 1744–1757 (2015). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laukkanen, L., Suhonen, R., Leino-Kilpi, H.: Solving work-related ethical problems: the activities of nurse managers. Nurs. Ethics 23(8), 838–850 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rantanen, M., Heimo, O.I.: Problem in patient information system acquirement in Finland: translation and terminology. In: Kimppa, K., Whitehouse, D., Kuusela, T., Phahlamohlaka, J. (eds.) HCC 2014. IAICT, vol. 431, pp. 362–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fiaidhi, J., Kuziemsky, C., Mohammed, S., Weber, J., Topaloglou, T.: Emerging it trends in healthcare and well-being. IT Prof. 18(3), 9–13 (2016). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh, H., Rizo, C., Enkin, M., Jadad, A.: What is ehealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J. Med. Internet Res. 7(1), e1 (2005). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Showell, C., Nøhr, C.: How Should We Define eHealth, and Does the Definition Matter? pp. 881–884. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2012).
  21. 21.
    Shaw, T., McGregor, D., Brunner, M., Keep, M., Janssen, A., Barnet, S.: What is ehealth(6)? Development of a conceptual model for ehealth: qualitative study with key informants. J. Med. Internet Res. 19(10), e324 (2017).
  22. 22.
    Eysenbach, G.: What is ehealth? J. Med. Internet Res. 3(2), e20 (2001). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muller, M.J., Kuhn, S.: Participatory design. Commun. ACM 36(6), 24–28 (1993).
  24. 24.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13, 188–235 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lahtiranta, J., Koskinen, J.S.S., Knaapi-Junnila, S., Nurminen, M.: Sensemaking in the personal health space. Inf. Technol. People 28(4), 790–805 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cabitza, F., Simone, C., Michelis, G.D.: User-driven prioritization of features for a prospective interpersonal health record: perceptions from the Italian context. Comput. Biol. Med. 59, 202–210 (2015).
  27. 27.
    Lee, G., Joong, Y.P., Soo-Yong, S., Jong, S.H., Hyeon, J.R., Jae, H.L., Bates, D.W.: Which users should be the focus of mobile personal health records? Analysis of user characteristics influencing usage of a tethered mobile personal health record. Telemed. e-Health 22, 419–428 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Demiris, G.: New era for the consumer health informatics research agenda. Health Syst. 1(1), 13–16 (2012). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piras, E.M., Zanutto, A.: “One day it will be you who tells us doctors what to do!”. Exploring the “personal” of PHR in paediatric diabetes management. Inf. Technol People 27(4), 421–439 (2014). Scholar
  30. 30.
    White, R.E.: Health information technology will shift the medical care paradigm. J. Gener. Intern. Med. 23(4), 495–499 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Numminen, O., Van Der Arend, A., Leino-Kilpi, H.: Nurses’ codes of ethics in practice and education: a review of the literature. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 23(2), 380–394 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gillon, R.: Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ. Br. Med. J. 309(6948), 184 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beauchamp, T.L.: Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. J. Med. Ethics 29(5), 269–274 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, L.M.: A bridge back to the future: public health ethics, bioethics, and environmental ethics. Am. J. Bioethics 17(9), 5–12 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leino-Kilpi, H.: Patient’s Autonomy, Privacy and Informed Consent, vol. 40. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kant, I.: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Essen, A., et al.: Patient access to electronic health records: differences across ten countries. Health Policy Technol. 7, 44–56 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koskinen, J.: Datenherrschaft–an ethically justified solution to the problem of ownership of patient information. Ph.D. thesis, University of Turku, Finland (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Campbell, A.V., Jones, D.G., Gillett, G.: Medical Ethics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dobson, J.: Understanding failure: the London ambulance service disaster. In: Dewsbury, G., Dobson, J. (eds.) Responsibility and Dependable Systems. Springer, London (2007). Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kaipio, J., et al.: Usability problems do not heal by themselves: national survey on physicians’ experiences with EHRS in Finland. Int. J. Med. Inform. 97, 266–281 (2017).
  42. 42.
    Denier, Y.: On personal responsibility and the human right to healthcare. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 14(2), 224–234 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Page, K.: The four principles: can they be measured and do they predict ethical decisionmaking? BMC Med. Ethics 13(1), 10 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Christen, M., Ineichen, C., Tanner, C.: How “moral” are the principles of biomedical ethics? – a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis. BMC Med. Ethics 15(1), 47 (2014). Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maner, W.: Unique ethical problems in information technology. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2(2), 137–154 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moor, J.H.: What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy 16(4), 266–275 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weckert, J.: Computer Ethics. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tavani, H.T.: The uniqueness debate in computer ethics: what exactly is at issue, and why does it matter? Ethics Inf. Technol. 4(1), 37–54 (2002). Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bynum, T.: Computer and information ethics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford (2016)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Moor, J., Weckert, J.: Nanoethics: assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In: Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 301–310 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Moor, J.H.: Should we let computers get under our skin? In: The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives, pp. 121–137 (2005)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bostrom, N., Yudkowsky, E.: The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 316–334 (2014)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gotterbarn, D., Bruckman, A., Flick, C., Miller, K., Wolf, M.J.: ACM code of ethics: a guide for positive action. Commun. ACM 61(1), 121–128 (2017). Scholar
  54. 54.
    Heimo, O.I., Kimppa, K.K., Nurminen, M.I.: Ethics and the inseparability postulate. In: ETHIComp 2014, Pierre & Marie Curie University, Paris, France, 25th–27th July 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stahl, B.C., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., Coeckelbergh, M.: From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: the transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems. Inf. Manag. 51(6), 810–818 (2014).
  56. 56.
    Tala, J.: Lakien laadinta ja vaikutukset. Edita (2005)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (2013).
  58. 58.
    The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vayena, E., Salathe, M., Madoff, L.C., Brownstein, J.S.: Ethical challenges of big data in public health. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11(2), 1–7 (2015).
  60. 60.
    Deutsch, E., Duftschmid, G., Dorda, W.: Critical areas of national electronic health record programs—is our focus correct? Int. J. Med. Inform. 79(3), 211–222 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heeks, R.: Health information systems: failure, success and improvisation. Int. J. Med. Inform. 75(2), 125–137 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations