• Home

The Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Integrating artificial intelligence in healthcare is a topic of recent debate as it can either make or break healthcare systems. Some of the advancements raise questions about AI's capabilities, as it can enhance human decision-making in healthcare. Even though AI has a lot of potential due to how it assists doctors in diagnosing complex diseases, prescribing new treatments, and predicting outcomes for patients, it has its drawbacks. Though one can argue that AI revolutionizes healthcare and brings about many new advancements, the ethical implications are often overlooked. Artificial intelligence shouldn’t be integrated into healthcare because of ethical issues, algorithm bias, and malicious use.Firstly, artificial intelligence shouldn’t be integrated into healthcare because of ethical issues. As stated in The Potential for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, “From the beginning of healthcare, critical decisions have always been made by human professionals, but introducing AI causes concerns about accountability, transparency, permission, and privacy” (Davenport, Kalakota 2019). From these challenges, the most important obstacle is transparency. The reason for this is that many AI systems function as “black boxes” which make the decision-making process very complicated (Rudin, & Radin,2019). For example, when AI diagnoses a patient with a tumor, it will be difficult for the AI to explain to the patient the reason for the tumor and additional details. Accountability is another critical issue of integrating AI into healthcare as mistakes are inevitable, and when mistakes are made, it will be hard to determine the cause of the mistake- whether it was the AI who made the mistake or the creator of the AI. Privacy is another big concern with using AI, as it can be difficult to guarantee that AI complies with a patient’s privacy and keeps their information safe. Therefore, addressing these ethical concerns is essential to make sure AI isn’t misused and that it follows the basic principles of healthcare.Secondly, artificial intelligence shouldn’t be integrated into healthcare because of the algorithm bias. As stated in The Potential for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, “Machine learning systems in healthcare may also be subject to algorithmic bias, perhaps predicting greater likelihood of disease on the basis of gender or race when those are not actually causal factors” (Davenport, Kalakota 2019). This shows that artificial intelligence could predict the wrong diagnosis based on a bias. For example, if artificial intelligence wrongly marks a certain demographic as high risk based on biased data, it could create misdiagnoses and problems in the future. Additionally, the algorithm bias can reduce the trust that patients put in the healthcare system. When patients figure out the algorithm is biased, they may turn away from the healthcare system, which could lead to a lower health literacy.Thirdly, artificial intelligence shouldn’t be integrated into healthcare because of the possibility of malicious use. As stated in Risks and Remedies for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, “the requirement of large datasets creates incentives for developers to collect such data from many patients”. (Engler, Kerry, Wheeler, Nico, D., & Mary, R,2022) This shows that AI systems rely heavily on patient data to make sure their systems are working properly. However, this poses a threat as it makes sensitive information vulnerable to hackers. For example, in a state of a malfunction of the data systems, hackers could hack into patient information, and this would not only endanger patient information but also cause mistrust in the healthcare system. As stated in A Review of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare,“influencing the sense of dignity and social isolation of the public in care settings; implications for HCPs’ roles and skill requirements; and the ability of AI to be used for malicious activity” (Al Kuwaiti, Nazer, Al-Reedy, Al-Shehri, Al-Muhanna, Subbarayalu,, Al Muhanna,., & Al-Muhanna, F. 2023) This statement shows that malicious AI isn’t just limited to the technical aspects of healthcare, but can lead to a sense of mistrust between patients and the healthcare system. Therefore, these problems must be addressed before AI is integrated into the healthcare system.To conclude, integrating artificial intelligence into healthcare is a recent topic of debate. Many advancements in the modern world can either make or break healthcare. All of these advancements in artificial intelligence may seem exemplary on the outside, as AI can diagnose complex diseases, predict outcomes for patients, and even create new treatments. However, the negative aspects such as the ethical implications of using AI in healthcare are often overlooked. Therefore, artificial intelligence shouldn’t be integrated into healthcare without proper consideration due to accountability issues, algorithm bias, and the malicious use of AI.

References:
Davenport, T., & Kalakota, R. (2019, June). The potential for artificial intelligence in Healthcare. Future healthcare journal
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6616181/#S0001Artificial Intelligence for Health and Health Care. (n.d.).
https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/jsr-17-task-002_aiforhealthandhealthcare12122017.pdfRudin, C., & Radin, J. (2019, November 22). Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t need to? A lesson from an explainable AI competition. Harvard Data Science Review.https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/f9kuryi8/release/8
Al Kuwaiti, A., Nazer, K., Al-Reedy, A., Al-Shehri, S., Al-Muhanna, A., Subbarayalu, A. V., Al Muhanna, D., & Al-Muhanna, F. A. (2023, June 5). A review of the role of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. MDPI.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/6/951
Engler, A., Kerry, C. F., Wheeler, T., Nicol Turner Lee, D. V., & Mary Burns, R. W. (2022, March 9). Risks and remedies for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/risks-and-remedies-for-artificial-intelligence-in-health-ca

• Home

The Case For Universal Healthcare: Healthcare is a Human Right

In 2024, 73 out of 195 countries had Universal healthcare, which is about 69% of the world's population. The United States is the only developed country without universal healthcare, which shows that access to universal healthcare is a fundamental human right. Many people across the world are unable to afford medical services that would easily prevent unnecessary risks to their health as well as death. Universal healthcare systems will allow citizens access to these essential medical services to better their lives. Access to healthcare is not just a way for a country to address systemic inequalities and ensure that the public is healthy but it is also a moral imperative. The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, yet it fails to provide its citizens with a basic human right – healthcare. To address this issue, we must advocate for the US government to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
According to Donald F. Kettl, a former professor at the University of Texas, the U.S. had the highest death rate among patients and medical interventions would have made a difference, when compared to other highly developed countries like France, Australia, Japan, etc. Furthermore, the US has a rate of ⅔ more potential years of life lost because of healthcare issues. Valuable years that people can spend with their loved ones are lost simply because they don’t have access to this essential- healthcare. Opponents of universal healthcare might say that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide healthcare services, or that these systems might be too costly- however, evidence suggests otherwise. The U.S. government should provide free healthcare for all because of economic inequality, public support, and cost-effectiveness.Firstly, economic inequality is a factor that prevents many people from accessing the healthcare they need to survive. It’s a barrier to accessing many valuable resources such as proper education and healthcare. This is unfair since these are essential for people to live prosperous and fulfilling lives. In many cases, economic inequality obstructs many people’s access to healthcare, which creates an inconsistency in the quantity and quality of healthcare. Those with lower incomes and healthcare are often unable to afford healthcare, health insurance, or even just essential medication.
As a result of not being able to get access, more long-term problems are caused, such as untreated chronic conditions and delayed diagnosis. Many people will avoid going to see the doctor to avoid the high costs, and this worsens their issues. According to Stewart, prohibitively high healthcare costs are the reason why many African Americans can’t access healthcare, which leaves many minority groups vulnerable, such as Blacks and Latinx. Furthermore, as Stewart mentions, in 2017, more than 28 million Americans were uninsured, further widening the gap in accessing healthcare. (Stewart 164) As the costs of medical expenses rise, and the wages stay the same or even decrease, many people struggle to afford basic care. Offering universal healthcare would solve this issue by providing the correct resources to all, regardless of their income, and it would reduce the financial burden that stops many people from getting the healthcare they need. As a result of this, there would be fewer health-related deaths, and it would improve the global health record.Secondly, the public support for universal healthcare is significant. This can be seen through a survey that was conducted in 2008 by the American Payroll Association which showed that more than 20,000 out of the 45,180 American workers favored a universal healthcare system. (American Employees Want Universal Healthcare 1). This shows that the public is calling for change, especially among the working class, who are most affected by the system’s high costs and changes. As the public demand grows after the country was struck with COVID-19, it is clear that the U.S. government will be forced to give into the demands of the public and make sure that healthcare is made accessible to all citizens, regardless of their financial status.
Some initiatives that the government can take are expanding Medicaid and moving to a single-payer system. Additionally, as mentioned in "Universal health care must be a priority -- even amid COVID", "The provision of universal health care remains a priority for Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO). It is also enshrined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on the basis that health is a prerequisite for economic growth." (Universal health care must be a priority -- even amid COVID). This shows how even global organizations, such as WHO emphasize the importance of universal healthcare.
Furthermore, the pandemic has emphasized the importance of universal healthcare systems. It shows that health crises can overwhelm even the most powerful countries, which can make their citizens vulnerable to disease and unprotected. As seen in the pandemic, countries that were better prepared with universal healthcare systems were better prepared to respond to the pandemic, allowing them to provide treatment and minimize the impact. This further shows how universal healthcare isn’t about the moral aspect, but is also a practical solution for global health problems, like COVID-19, further strengthening the argument for prioritizing universal healthcare.Thirdly, universal healthcare is cost-effective, contrary to the popular belief that it would cause the government to go bankrupt. As mentioned in the Washington Post, a solution by Economists at the Urban Institute proposes a solution that would leave Medicare and employer-based insurance undamaged, while also creating a solution for the rest of the economy. By giving more air and limiting what the providers can charge, the “plan” would reduce the costs for both the government and the citizens. With an estimated cost of $98 billion in the first year, which is much lower than the single-payer proposals, this is a renewable way to provide universal healthcare, without draining the finances of the government. Additionally, as it is mentioned in "Universal health care must be a priority -- even amid COVID,” The WHO has placed 'health for all' high on the agenda of next week's meeting, hoping to drive political and financial commitments from governments.". This shows how universal health care isn’t short-term, but rather seen as a long-term solution and an investment that will help with political and financial stability, showing that universal health care is beneficial for economies. Implementing this program would help stabilize and benefit the economy with universal healthcare. As a result of this, universal healthcare offers both financial and public health benefits, which makes it a cost-effective solution for the United States.
Those who oppose universal healthcare may argue that it is not economically feasible to provide healthcare to the millions of citizens who reside in the US. To create these programs, significant tax increases would be burdened on them to subsidize care for others. These taxes would most likely also negatively impact the people who need universal coverage the most, such as low/middle-class families. Even if these taxes were not imposed, universal healthcare would deepen the national debt for the US Government. Furthermore, the current profit-driven system of the U.S. incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to innovate drugs to better treat patients. According to Kevin Pham, a doctor and graduate fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the US spent $182.3 million in medical research in 2017 and of that money, nearly $121.8 billion came from private investment, not federal (Pham). If the US were to create universal coverage for all citizens, private companies would be guaranteed to lose profits and clientele. This would make them lose the incentive to innovate new medicines to serve the US population. In addition, the USA struggles with lots of healthcare issues that need further research to improve the quality of care that a patient gets. Pham mentions the rising costs of dealing with drug-resistant bacteria which results in approximately $20 billion in healthcare costs (Pham). He argues that to improve the US’s chance of fighting these infections, we must maintain a profit-driven system to innovate and solve the healthcare issues that plague our country.
The idea that economic barriers stand in the way of universal healthcare in the US is a myth. This false idea is perpetuated by those who do not recognize the value of investing in our citizens and their health. Economists at the Urban Institute, an independent research group, recommend that the US Government subsidize the cost of healthcare for its citizens to achieve a balance between a more equitable healthcare system and the cost associated with universal healthcare (“a near-universal”). This system would allow a US citizen to pay no more than 8.5% of their total income on the most premium of insurance (“A near-universal”). This would also keep healthcare providers from “charging private insurers in the new market more than they charge Medicare, which could lower costs dramatically.” This change would cost the US government about $98 billion, which may seem like a lot at first, but would eventually improve the odds of living for patients all across the USA (“A near-universal”).To conclude, the U.S. government should provide universal healthcare to all citizens. This would help address the economic and political inequalities that millions of Americans face. The U.S. government should provide free healthcare for all because of economic inequality, public support, and cost-effectiveness. The quality of care a person receives should not be based on the money in their pocket. Every human being’s life is valuable and should be treated as such. No one’s life is worth more than the next and we cannot just prioritize the rich and allow poor people to die because they cannot afford treatment. If the U.S. government can spend trillions of dollars on the military, certainly the people of this country can be provided with healthcare. While some may argue that universal healthcare would remove the need for innovation in the medical industry or would not be economically feasible, research proves otherwise. Often, universal healthcare is disregarded as a moral argument- however, it is important to note that it is also a practical necessity that will make sure that every American has access to the healthcare they need to live long, healthy, and prosperous lives.

References
"American Employees Want Universal Healthcare." PR Newswire, 18 Sept. 2008, p. NA. Gale
OneFile:News,link.google.com/apps/doc/A185259594/STND?u=txshracd2500&sid=bookmark-S
TND&xid=385766c9. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025."A near-universal health-care plan that wouldn't break the bank." Washingtonpost.com, 13 May 2018.
GaleInContext:OpposingViewpoints,link.google.com/apps/doc/A538484889/OVIC?u=txshracd2
500&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=6cea64fc. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.KETTL, DONALD F. “Health, Unequal.” The Divided States of America: Why Federalism Doesn’t Work,
Princeton University Press, 2020, pp. 92–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpbnqgz.9.
Accessed 2 Jan. 2025. Pg 105Pham, Kevin. "How 'Medicare for All' Could Block Medical Progress." Gale Opposing Viewpoints
Online Collection, Gale, 2024. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/IQKGFA325888373/OVIC?u=txshracd2500&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid
=6cc66e25. Accessed 1 Jan. 2025. Originally published as "How 'Medicare for All' Could Block
Medical Progress," The Daily Signal, 23 Sept. 2019.Stewart, David, et al. “Does the United States Need a National Health and Insurance Scheme? Views,
Facts, Challenges, and Potential Benefits.” Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions
Diversity, vol. 13, no. 2, 2020, pp. 163–73. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27056498.
Accessed 2 Jan. 2025."Universal health care must be a priority -- even amid COVID." Nature, vol. 593, no. 7859, 20 May 2021,
pp. 313+. Gale Academic OneFile, dx.doi.org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01313-3.
Accessed 1 Jan. 2025.

• Home

The reality of using CRISPR

In recent years, CRISPR, a technology that allows scientists to selectively modify the DNA of living organisms, has become one of the most promising technologies in genetic engineering, possibly treating and curing many diseases that humans have struggled with for centuries. By using CRISPR in a certain way, there is hope for curing multiple genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. However, the widespread use of CRISPR has also raised some concerns that cannot be ignored. Even though technology can cure many diseases, it can also introduce multiple risks that can impact both individuals and the community. Furthermore, since the use of CRISPR and its potential are powerful, it should be approached with caution. As a result of this, the use of CRISPR should be limited due to the unintended consequences, the moral concerns, the positional misuse and harm, and non-medical applications.
Firstly, the use of CRISPR should be limited because of the unintended consequences. When CRISPR-Cas9 is used to alter a specific gene, there is a risk of off-target mutations, where unintended parts of the genome are affected- and this can have a long-term effect and can even cause new diseases that pass on through generations. Furthermore, this could worsen an already problematic disease, leading to unintentional health consequences. This mistake can be seen in the case of the human embryo when a Chinese researcher tried to remove a fatal blood disease, but he made a mistake in the middle of his experiment. This mistake could only be corrected in other embryos. According to a research article titled “Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology”, “Although the mutation could be corrected in two other embryos, nontarget effects occurred in other genes. In the other three embryos, the mutation could not be corrected.” (Ayanoğlu, F. B., Elçin, A. E., & Elçin, Y. M. (2020) This mistake shows how high the risks associated with unintentional consequences are, showing that even small mistakes can cause long-term genetic mistakes.Secondly, the use of CRISPR should be limited because of ethical concerns. These concerns not only affect the individual but can also affect the society. One of the main ethical concerns is informed consent as mentioned in a research article called “Ethical Issues Regarding CRISPR Mediated Genome Editing”, “The most contentious issues concerning human germline modifications are the challenges to human safety and morality such as the risk of unforeseen, undesirable effects in clinical applications particularly to correct or prevent genetic diseases, a matter of informed consent and the risk of exploitation for eugenics.”. (AT;, S. Z. F. (n.d.)) This shows that informed consent is one of the most important things when it comes to gene editing, but germline editing shows problems in this aspect. An example of this is that embryos and underage individuals cannot guarantee their informed consent and these decisions must be made by their parents, which goes against the “informed consent”. Even with parents making these decisions, they may not understand the long-term effects and might even end up deciding according to their desires, rather than what is good for the child. This complicates the ethical aspect of gene editing, especially when the effects are irreversible.
Thirdly, the use of CRISPR should be limited because of the potential misuse and harm. Even though CRISPR has precise gene editing skills, there is also a possibility of misuse which could violate many ethical standards. As mentioned in a research article called “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool”, “Given the significant potential promise, the dark history of eugenics, the potentially serious transgenerational risks, and the theoretical potential for misuse, it is reasonable for the global community to consider instantiating national and supranational regulations, if not revising older agreements such as the Geneva [166] and the United Nations Conventions on Biological and Toxin Weapons, [167] to reflect changes in genomic engineering technologies” ( (n.d.-b).). This quote shows how dangerous integrating CRISPR into society is as it can be misused. One of the misuses can be used in war. Additionally, another is bioterrorism. As mentioned in an article called “No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR”, it is said “. In addition, CRISPR could be co-opted for nefarious purposes, such as bioterrorism or biowarfare.” (Caplan, A. L., Parent, B., Shen, M., & Plunkett, C. (2015). There is a real risk associated with CRISPR as it can create dangerous pathogens that could destabilize and harm many ecosystems. The fear of using genetically modified soldiers could lead to political and social instability, and could also target specific communities, which could lead to an imbalance. This in turn affects the social and political imbalance as CRISPR could be an abuse of power.
Lastly, the use of CRISPR should be limited because of non-medical applications. There are many ways people use the CRISPR for non-medical uses. One of the most common ones is designer babies. Artificially choosing traits, such as eye color, height, and intelligence, not only allows genetic engineering but alters human traits for non-medical reasons. This not only raises questions about inequality, but also poses a risk to human life, because children are treated as products and not as humans, as they can be “customized”. In an article called ”CRISPR Ethical Concerns”, it is mentioned that “Should we allow parents to have the opportunity to choose what color hair or eyes their baby will have? Or how tall or muscular he or she will be? CRISPR, as it becomes more commonplace, might allow parents to craft their child in minute detail, truly a “designer baby.” (n.d.). Based on this quote, it raises the question on whether we have the right to infer the natural genetic process and future makeup of the generation, especially since there are many unknowns.
To conclude, in recent years, CRISPR has been one of the most promising technologies in genetic research, as it has the potential to treat and cure many genetic diseases. By using CRISPR in a certain way, there is a way to prevent many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia. However, some disadvantages come with using CRISPR that cannot be ignored. Since the risks that come with using CRISPR outweigh its benefits, it should be approached with caution. As a result of this, the use of CRISPR should be limited because of the unintended consequences, the non-medical applications, the moral concerns, and the positional misuse and harm.

ReferencesAyanoğlu, F. B., Elçin, A. E., & Elçin, Y. M. (2020, April 2). Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7129066/
AT;, S. Z. F. (n.d.). Ethical issues regarding CRISPR mediated genome editing. Current issues in molecular biology.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28879860/
CRISPR ethics: Moral considerations for applications of a ... (n.d.-b).
https://www.bu.edu/khc/files/2018/10/CRISPR-Ethics-reading.pdf
Caplan, A. L., Parent, B., Shen, M., & Plunkett, C. (2015, November). No time to waste--the ethical challenges created by CRISPR: CRISPR/Cas, being an efficient, simple, and cheap technology to edit the genome of any organism, raises many ethical and regulatory issues beyond the use to manipulate human germ line cells. EMBO reports.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4641494/
CRISPR ethical concerns. Future Work Institute. (n.d.).
https://futureworkinstitute.com/crispr-ethical-concerns/

• Home