Abstract
Deontology and utilitarianism are two philosophical approaches to ethical decision-making, often illustrated by the well-known “Trolley” dilemma. We evaluated fourteen large language models (LLMs), including GPT-o1-preview and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama, across five medical versions of this dilemma. While some models adhered to established ethical standards, others showed inconsistencies. All models occasionally favored a utilitarian approach over a deontological approach, with some reaching up to 80% of decisions. In certain instances, LLMs endorsed actions that would uniformly be considered unethical, such as amputating a limb without consent. These findings raise concerns about the real-world risks of using LLMs in clinical decision-making, particularly regarding patient autonomy and safety, and highlight the need for further investigation into how these models align with current medical ethical standards.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos