The growing prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) in mobile health (mHealth) has given rise to a distinct subset of apps that provide users with diagnostic information using their inputted health status and symptom information-AI-powered symptom checker apps (AISympCheck). While these apps may potentially increase access to health care, they raise consequential ethical and legal questions. This paper will highlight notable concerns with AI usage in the health care system, further entrenchment of preexisting biases in the health care system and issues with professional accountability. To provide an in-depth analysis of the issues of bias and complications of professional obligations and liability, we focus on 2 mHealth apps as examples-Babylon and Ada. We selected these 2 apps as they were both widely distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic and make prominent claims about their use of AI for the purpose of assessing user symptoms. First, bias entrenchment often originates from the data used to train AI systems, causing the AI to replicate these inequalities through a \"garbage in, garbage out\" phenomenon. Users of these apps are also unlikely to be demographically representative of the larger population, leading to distorted results. Second, professional accountability poses a substantial challenge given the vast diversity and lack of regulation surrounding the reliability of AISympCheck apps. It is unclear whether these apps should be subject to safety reviews, who is responsible for app-mediated misdiagnosis, and whether these apps ought to be recommended by physicians. With the rapidly increasing number of apps, there remains little guidance available for health professionals. Professional bodies and advocacy organizations have a particularly important role to play in addressing these ethical and legal gaps. Implementing technical safeguards within these apps could mitigate bias, AIs could be trained with primarily neutral data, and apps could be subject to a system of regulation to allow users to make informed decisions. In our view, it is critical that these legal concerns are considered throughout the design and implementation of these potentially disruptive technologies. Entrenched bias and professional responsibility, while operating in different ways, are ultimately exacerbated by the unregulated nature of mHealth.

Against the backdrop of cultural and political ideals, this article highlights both the significance of mental health nursing in meeting population needs and the regulatory barriers that may be impeding its ability to adequately do so. Specifically, we consider how ambiguous notions of \'proficiency\' in nurse education-prescribed by the regulator-impact the development of future mental health nurses and their mental health nursing identity. A key tension in mental health practice is the ethical-legal challenges posed by sanctioned powers to restrict patients\' freedom at the same time as the desire (and obligation) to promote patients\' self-determined recovery. The genericism of the UK\'s Future Nurse Standards do little to prepare mental health nurses to navigate the tensions that ensue. This has consequences for nurses and patients alike, as both risk experiencing the distress and dissonance that attends giving or receiving poor care. We argue that more needs to be done to enable mental health nurses to define and articulate the nuances of the profession as part of becoming critical, thoughtful and confident practitioners. Educators can contribute to this mission by aligning curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to create meaningful opportunities for mental health nursing students to engage with the complexities of mental health nursing practice. Without this, the credibility of the profession will continue to be questioned; its future uncertain.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the doctor-patient relationship. At least this is how it is presented in theory. In practice, doctors struggle with their obligation to inform their patient before obtaining their approval prior to a medical intervention. In Taiwan, the culture is often mentioned to justify the doctor\'s reluctance to speak openly with their patient. Invoking the importance of the family in the society, doctors tend to rely less on their patients and more on their relatives to make important decisions. Yet, the cultural argument for not seeking the patients\' informed consent sounds more like a mere excuse than the real cause of the difficulties doctors face today in obtaining their patients\' consent. This paper argues that today the doctors in Taiwan are mostly governed by the same fear that was the rule in the USA and Europe until the 1980s. It may be time for changing the paradigm, admitting that patients are able to handle even the most dramatic diagnosis. It seems also important to get away from the sterile opposition of doctor\'s paternalism versus patient\'s autonomy and to introduce a true partnership between doctors and patients.