DEV Community

Cover image for Isn't it strange that being in a non-responsive state gives authority to someone else to take life and death decisions?
Anubhav Tiwari
Anubhav Tiwari

Posted on

Isn't it strange that being in a non-responsive state gives authority to someone else to take life and death decisions?

A couple of months ago, I was visiting a hospital. By accident, I entered a room that wasn’t assigned to me. There, I saw an elderly man, likely in his 70s, lying in a bed. He looked pale but still appeared somewhat healthy. As I stood there for a moment, I overheard that he was scheduled to be put on a ventilator the next morning.

A week later, I intentionally went back to check on him. I learned that he was in the final minutes of his life. He was unresponsive, but something about his stillness made me wonder: did he really want to let go? Could there be a part of him that still wanted to live, even if he couldn't express it?

His family had made the decision to take him off the ventilator. They believed it was best to free him from what they saw as "unwilling pain." Maybe they were right. But as I stood there, the ethical weight of the situation became clear. Is it right that we, as humans, have to make such profound decisions when we are so limited in understanding what the person might actually want?

This leads me to where I believe technology can—and should—play a more significant role. What if we had an advanced machine learning algorithm that could interpret neural and cardiac signals to determine what a person in a non-responsive state might be feeling? Today, algorithms are already being designed to understand certain brain and body signals, but they aren't precise enough to make such a life-changing call.

I’m actively contributing to this vision. My current work focuses on improving the accuracy of algorithms designed to interpret complex biological signals, such as neural and cardiac responses. This is no easy task, but I believe in pushing the boundaries of what technology can achieve in healthcare. Every step forward brings us closer to solutions that may one day give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves, ensuring their unspoken feelings and wishes are better understood in critical moments

Existing Technologies and Where We Stand Now
Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are already transforming healthcare. For example, AI is being used in the early detection of diseases like cancer with impressive accuracy. A recent study from MIT showed that AI could predict breast cancer up to five years in advance with 94% accuracy. In critical care units, AI-driven systems like deep learning algorithms have been proven to predict patient deterioration, sepsis, and even mortality rates with an accuracy of 85–90%.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are another exciting field. BCIs, which allow direct communication between the brain and external devices, are showing promise for patients with severe disabilities. Some systems have enabled paralyzed patients to move robotic limbs or type using only their thoughts. Although these technologies are still in their infancy when it comes to understanding the full complexity of human consciousness, they are laying the groundwork for more sophisticated neural-response systems in the future.

However, while these tools are remarkable, they still fall short when it comes to the deeply nuanced and complex task of interpreting what a person in a vegetative or comatose state might be feeling or wanting. Currently, most life-death decisions for unresponsive patients rely on family input and medical assessments rather than technology.

Ethical Considerations of Tech in Life-Death Decisions
Of course, even if such technology existed, the question remains: should we trust it entirely? Relying on a machine for decisions of life and death could seem cold and impersonal. Would it strip away the human empathy that's so crucial in such moments? Balancing clinical data with compassion is key, and we would have to ensure that any technology used enhances rather than replaces the human element in these sensitive decisions.

In a 2022 survey conducted by the European Commission, 60% of respondents expressed concerns about trusting AI in healthcare, especially in critical care decisions. Despite these concerns, 72% of hospitals are expected to increase their AI adoption by 2025, particularly in diagnostic and predictive healthcare. This indicates a growing belief that while AI may not replace human judgment, it can certainly complement it by providing more accurate data for decision-making.

A Glimpse into the Future
Looking ahead, it's not impossible to imagine a world where machine learning could help doctors understand a patient's condition on a deeper level. Perhaps in the future, algorithms will evolve to analyze neural and cardiac responses in real-time, assisting doctors and families in making more informed decisions. Just as robots are now assisting in life-saving surgeries, AI could become a crucial part of life-death decision-making—serving not as the sole decision-maker, but as an advanced assistant to humans.

I’m currently working on improving the accuracy of algorithms in this area. While it's a difficult task, I believe this search will take us closer to solutions that ensure people’s wishes and unspoken feelings are more accurately understood in critical moments. The goal isn’t to replace the human touch but to support it with precise, data-driven insights.

But what do you think? Should we trust machines to help us make life and death decisions, or is this something that only humans should handle? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Top comments (0)