Trending
Second in Misogyny: How Sexism Pervades J.D. Vance’s Worldview
Second in Misogyny: How Sexism Pervades J.D. Vance’s Worldview
By and
“Please Don’t Hurt Me”
“Please Don’t Hurt Me”
By
Judge Cannon’s Ruling Dismissing the Trump Case Suffers From Constitutional Myopia in Interpreting the Appointments Clause (and Appropriations Clause): Part Two in a Two-Part Series
Judge Cannon’s Ruling Dismissing the Trump Case Suffers From Constitutional Myopia in Interpreting the Appointments Clause (and Appropriations Clause)
By
Charles E. Binkley
Charles E. Binkley

Charles E. Binkley, MD, FACS, HEC-C, is a hepatobiliary surgeon and bioethicist. He is Director of Bioethics at Hackensack Meridian Health, and Associate Professor of Surgery at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine. He is also a Bioethics Fellow at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley. His academic research is focused on Artificial Intelligence systems that support clinical decisions, particularly the need to inform patients, shared machine-physician agency, and assigning moral responsibility for AI guided clinical decisions. Dr. Binkley’s work has appeared in Cancer Research, Annals of Surgery, The Journal of the American College of Surgeons, JAMA Surgery, AMA Journal of Ethics, The American Journal of Bioethics, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Verdict. He is the author of Encoding Bioethics: AI in Clinical Decision Making (UC Press 2024) (with Tyler Loftus).

Columns by Charles E. Binkley
Permalink to Is Informed Consent Necessary When Artificial Intelligence is Used for Patient Care: Applying the Ethics from Justice Cardozo’s Opinion in Schloendorff v. Society of New York HospitalIs Informed Consent Necessary When Artificial Intelligence is Used for Patient Care: Applying the Ethics from Justice Cardozo’s Opinion in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
Is Informed Consent Necessary When Artificial Intelligence is Used for Patient Care: Applying the Ethics from Justice Cardozo’s Opinion in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Binkley discusses the ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) models in clinical decision-making, particularly focusing on patient informed consent. Dr. Binkley argues that patients should be fully informed about the use of AI in their healthcare, not only as patients but also as data donors and potential research subjects, to maintain autonomy, transparency, and trust in the physician-patient relationship.

Permalink to The Physician’s Conundrum: Assigning Moral Responsibility for Medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine LearningThe Physician’s Conundrum: Assigning Moral Responsibility for Medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
The Physician’s Conundrum: Assigning Moral Responsibility for Medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Charles E. Binkley, director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, describes some critical ethical issues raised by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems for clinical decision support in medicine. Dr. Binkley calls for resolution of these issues before these emerging technologies are widely implemented.

Permalink to Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Civil Protections for Same-Sex Couples Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of PhiladelphiaPope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Civil Protections for Same-Sex Couples Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Civil Protections for Same-Sex Couples Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
and

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Permalink to Whence Cometh Evil? Making Sense of Human Suffering and COVID-19Whence Cometh Evil? Making Sense of Human Suffering and COVID-19
Whence Cometh Evil? Making Sense of Human Suffering and COVID-19

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Binkley, MD, offers a perspective on how we might make sense of suffering, particularly in light of the present COVID-19 pandemic. Binkley suggests that through suffering, we are paradoxically able to find good, and in this instance, that good might be the practice of social reciprocity.

Permalink to Can the FDA Regulate Vaping as an Ethical Alternative to Tobacco Cigarettes?Can the FDA Regulate Vaping as an Ethical Alternative to Tobacco Cigarettes?
Can the FDA Regulate Vaping as an Ethical Alternative to Tobacco Cigarettes?
and

Clinical bioethicist Charles E. Binkley and attorney David S. Kemp consider whether—and how—the Food and Drug Administration might reasonably regulate vaping devices, also known as electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS), so that they can serve as an ethical alternative to combustible tobacco products. Specifically, Binkley and Kemp and call for further longitudinal data on the risks and benefits of ENDS and propose certain contingencies that must be in place before ENDS can serve as a viable replacement for conventional combustible tobacco products.

Permalink to An Ethical Analysis of the American Health Care ActAn Ethical Analysis of the American Health Care Act
An Ethical Analysis of the American Health Care Act
and

Charles E. Binkley, MD, FACS, co-chair of the Ethics Committee at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Francisco, and attorney David Kemp conduct an ethical analysis of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, using the principles of impartiality and justice. Within this framework, Binkley and Kemp identify three values around which health care coverage should be prioritized, and they conclude that the AHCA fails to meet the ethical standards for government-supported health care.