In the work we do to support healthcare organizations, we see every day how AI tools are already transforming the industry. Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, wonderful humanityrecognizes the common sense proposition that such transformations can have both positive and negative aspects.
This powerful technology “often surpasses human intelligence in speed and computational power and brings tangible benefits to many fields,” but the benefits may not be shared equally or equitably. “To think that new technologies automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence.” So Pope Leo The second question is critical to preserving our humanity and shaping the world for future generations, as illustrated by numerous examples in the 42,000-word encyclical.
granted, wonderful humanity It has no regulatory power and does not impose strict obligations on medical institutions. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t implications and lessons across the industry, especially as AI adoption continues to skyrocket.
Broadly speaking, the Pope’s letter puts human dignity and compassionate care at the center of the conversation and encourages a deliberative, governance-first approach to the adoption and use of AI. It is logical to assume that Catholic health systems may be among those most likely to consider this guidance when forming organizational policy. However, we suggest that their secular or other sectarian allies might also consider this guidance.
wonderful humanity or “Understanding Human Safety in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” which identifies some important AI considerations for healthcare leaders. Here are three important points:
Careful thought and governance-first attitude towards AI could win in the long run
For organizations deciding whether to implement new AI tools, this encyclical provides a direct doctrinal rationale for a thoughtful governance-first posture.
Paragraphs 105-106 of the encyclical state that “responsibilities must be clearly defined at every stage” for any AI system, and that “prudence, rigorous evaluation, and sometimes a slowing of the pace of AI adoption” are also part of “responsible care for the human family,” which requires “a strong legal framework, independent oversight, and informed users.”
The aforementioned paragraphs of this encyclical contain a direct warning that those who design AI systems and processes are essentially imposing their own moral codes. Companies implementing or using such systems therefore have an obligation to affirmatively confirm that the proposed AI implementation is consistent with the organization’s values. Adopters of AI must exercise proactive discernment and ongoing monitoring and governance.
The encyclical also warns that human-centered AI governance is the standard to which we should aspire, rather than an approach that reduces decision-making solely to machine-based utility and efficiency. As AI tools become more powerful, the temptation to accept their output without challenge, question, or validation is growing stronger.
In medical settings, where life-or-death situations are part of daily work, such unintended consequences can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, a more durable way to incorporate standard AI governance standards could include documented policies and procedures to ensure meaningful “human participation” and clarify how and why AI is used to support and inform human decisions.
It’s important to audit your AI tools for bias, discrimination, privacy, and ethics
Throughout his encyclical, Pope Leo XIV nods to the obligation of healthcare institutions to audit AI tools for bias, discrimination, privacy protection, and positive values.
For example, sections 103 and 171 refer to the risk that AI-mediated decisions affecting “credit, employment, and access to essential services” could discriminate against vulnerable people behind a “veneer of neutrality and objectivity.”
In the context of health systems, this could include implementing management AI tools to manage patient data, risk scoring, resource allocation, and operational triage. In relation to these developments, both medical law and Catholic social teaching impose anti-discrimination obligations based on the concept of human dignity. wonderful humanity Health data has been identified as a particularly sensitive concentration of power because those who control it may effectively decide how medicines, investments, and protections are allocated. This concern is consistent with legal obligations already reflected in HIPAA, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, state anti-discrimination laws, and AI-specific regulatory guidance on auditability, explainability, and bias testing.
Positive values and ethics should also be taken into account during the initial audit and system design. Paragraphs 102-104 argue that once AI enters people’s lives, it will “impact their rights, opportunities, status, and freedoms,” and that automated systems cannot exercise compassion, compassion, or recognition that people are capable of change. As a result, delegating decisions to such systems can lead to “new forms of exclusion.” This suggests an obligation for healthcare organizations to scrutinize not only whether clinical AI tools are being used for good purposes, but also whether the values embedded in their design and training data are consistent with the inalienable dignity of patients.
That also extends to relationships with vendors. Requiring a commitment to algorithmic transparency, bias auditing, and data management by third-party providers is consistent with the encyclical’s demands. and Many state AI regulatory frameworks are moving toward that anyway.
Humans, connection and accountability must remain at the center of care
wonderful humanity They warn that artificial imitations of care can be especially dangerous when real relationships are already tenuous, as the desire for authentic relationships can gradually disappear and cause more serious harm. In healthcare law, this concern is directly reflected in patient rights principles, including communication, language access, disability accommodations, and the therapeutic relationship, with regulators increasingly asking whether automation is replacing the human engagement sought by vulnerable patients.
For example, AI communication tools have the potential to reduce staffing burdens and improve consistency and scale. But if they later erode trust, increase complaints, encourage miscommunication, or trigger regulatory scrutiny, the costs of redesigning systems, retraining staff, and rebuilding trust can outweigh the savings of hasty implementation.
The importance of human dignity and human relationships runs through virtually every chapter of the encyclical. The encyclical repeatedly points out that technology must serve and enhance human processes and relationships, rather than replace or take a backseat to them, and that human responsibility must remain paramount “at every step.” Organizations that can clearly articulate exactly how human judgment will be prioritized, how accountability will be tracked, and how the dignity of individual patients will be protected from the logic of optimization for every AI tool they deploy will understand the most serious challenges of this encyclical. These are the people who could not allow efficiency to become, in the Pope’s words, “the ultimate standard of value.”
Taking a long-term view of AI in healthcare
The approach outlined by wonderful humanity It may take a bit of trust (just kidding) on the part of decision-makers to look beyond the short-term financial impact and take a long-term view.
The medical organization is wonderful humanity (and elsewhere, such as the EU AI Law – Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI 100-1, 2023, supplemented in 2026), and the OECD AI Principles (OECD/LEGAL/0449; adopted in 2019, revised in 2024) can provide you with more information and prepare you for an evolving world. They ask tougher questions of vendors and demand explainability from clinical tools. They avoid the temptation of rapid adoption, which can lead to mistakes. Choosing this option can reduce not only legal liability, but also reputational and financial damage. We do not believe that the Pope or others are suggesting that we avoid or unduly delay the use of AI. Instead, they are calling for a well-planned implementation.
While deferrals may be necessary in the short term, the long-term impact of an intentional and purposeful approach to AI may be worth it. It is this kind of approach that ensures that the quality of each health care institution is “measured not by the strength of its means but by the care it can provide, and by its ability to recognize people as faces, not simply as functions.”
