ArticleJournal of religion and health2026
Medical AI and Human Dignity: A Catholic Normative Ethical Framework in Light of Magnifica Humanitas.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Patient Beyond the Dataset: Levinas, Magnifica Humanitas, and the Principle of Non-totalization in AI Healthcare in the Philippines.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping healthcare through advances in prediction and personalization, yet these developments also raise questions that are not merely technical but also are moral and religious. This article offers a normative framework for Catholic engagement with medical AI in light of Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas (2026). Drawing on the encyclical's critique of the "Babel Syndrome," we argue that medical AI is dehumanizing in two principal ways: first, through an idolatry of optimization that reduces the person to a data source; and second, through an illusion of algorithmic perfection that treats vulnerability and finitude as technical defects to be overcome. In response, we propose a roadmap grounded in Catholic social teaching and structured around three principles: non-substitution, algorithmic transparency and accountability, and solidarity with the preferential option for the poor. We further show how these principles deepen and reinterpret the bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, and justice in AI-mediated care. Finally, we draw out concrete implications for healthcare institutions and relevant stakeholders. Rather than rejecting AI, we argue that Catholic healthcare ethics should further uphold the alignment of technological innovation to the dignity of the human person, the common good, and the healing vocation of medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42601485What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.