Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Three things digital ethics can learn from medical ethics

Ethical codes, ethics committees, and respect for autonomy have been key to the development of medical ethics — elements that digital ethics would be advised to emulate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Botsman, R. Dawn of the techlash. The Guardian (11 February 2018);

  2. Smith, E. The techlash against Amazon, Facebook and Google—and what they can do. The Economist (20 January 2018);

  3. Statt, N. Google dissolves AI ethics board just one week after forming it. The Verge (4 April 2019);

  4. Mahieu, R., van Eck, N. J., van Putten, D. & van den Hoven, J. Ethics Inf. Technol. 20, 175–187 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heller, J. Syphilis victims in U.S. study went untreated for 40 years. The New York Times (26 July 1972);

  6. Harvard Ad Hoc Committee JAMA 205, 337–340 (1968).

  7. Pichai, S. AI at Google: our principles. Google (7 June 2018);

  8. Powles, J. & Véliz, C. How Europe is fighting to change tech companies’ ‘wrecking ball’ ethics. The Guardian (30 January 2016);

  9. Ethics Advisory Group Towards a Digital Ethics (European Data Protection Supervisor, 2018);

  10. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (European Commission, 8 April 2019);

  11. Metzinger, T. Ethics washing made in Europe. Der Tagesspiegel (8 April 2019);

  12. Whittaker, M. et al. AI Now Report 2018 (AI Now Institute, 2018);

  13. Schneier, B. Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World (W. W. Norton & Company, 2018).

  14. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (ACM, 2018);

  15. Aulisio, M. P. AMA J. Ethics 18, 546–553 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aulisio, M. P. & Arnold, R. M. Chest 134, 417–424 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Christman, J. Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2018 edn (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Stanford Univ., 2018);

  18. Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association (T. K. and P. G. Collins, 1848);

  19. Patient Rights: Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.3 (American Medical Association, 2016);

  20. Koepke, L. “We can change these terms at anytime”: the detritus of terms of service agreements. Medium (18 January 2015);

  21. Williams, J. Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  22. Balkin, J. M. UC Davis Law Rev. 49, 1183–1234 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The work of the author has been supported by a Wellcome Trust grant (203132/Z/16/Z).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carissa Véliz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Véliz, C. Three things digital ethics can learn from medical ethics. Nat Electron 2, 316–318 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing