IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2510.21843.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A quality of mercy is not trained: the imagined vs. the practiced in healthcare process-specialized AI development

Author

Listed:
  • Anand Bhardwaj
  • Samer Faraj

Abstract

In high stakes organizational contexts like healthcare, artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being designed to augment complex coordination tasks. This paper investigates how the ethical stakes of such systems are shaped by their epistemic framings: what aspects of work they represent, and what they exclude. Drawing on an embedded study of AI development for operating room (OR) scheduling at a Canadian hospital, we compare scheduling-as-imagined in the AI design process: rule-bound, predictable, and surgeon-centric, with scheduling-as-practiced as a fluid, patient-facing coordination process involving ethical discretion. We show how early representational decisions narrowed what the AI could support, resulting in epistemic foreclosure: the premature exclusion of key ethical dimensions from system design. Our findings surface the moral consequences of abstraction and call for a more situated approach to designing healthcare process-specialized artificial intelligence systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Anand Bhardwaj & Samer Faraj, 2025. "A quality of mercy is not trained: the imagined vs. the practiced in healthcare process-specialized AI development," Papers 2510.21843, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.21843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.21843
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.21843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.