We are sometimes unsure of the moral status of our relationships with other entities. Recent case studies in this uncertainty include our relationships with artificial agents (robots, assistant AI, etc.), animals, and patients with “locked-in” syndrome. Do these entities have basic moral standing? Could they count as true friends or lovers? What should we do when we do not know the answer to these questions? An influential line of reasoning suggests that, in such cases of moral uncertainty, we need meta-moral decision rules that allow us to either minimize the risks of moral wrongdoing or improve the choice-worthiness of our actions. One particular argument adopted in this literature is the “risk asymmetry argument,” which claims that the risks associated with accepting or rejecting some moral facts may be sufficiently asymmetrical as to warrant favoring a particular practical resolution of this uncertainty. Focusing on the case study of artificial beings, this article argues that this is best understood as an ethical-epistemic challenge. The article argues that taking potential risk asymmetries seriously can help resolve disputes about the status of human–AI relationships, at least in practical terms (philosophical debates will, no doubt, continue); however, the resolution depends on a proper, empirically grounded assessment of the risks involved. Being skeptical about basic moral status, but more open to the possibility of meaningful relationships with such entities, may be the most sensible approach to take.

Significant advances have been made in extracorporeal life support, which has resulted in the increased use of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Retrospective studies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of selection criteria for post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Current indications include failure to wean from cardiopulmonary bypass, haemodynamic collapse, pulmonary hypertension, post-repair of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or need for bridge to transplantation. Short- and mid-term results are improving. Ethical concerns still attend the process, however. Moral risks related to post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be encountered before, during, and after the open heart procedure. At each stage of the decision-making process, moral risks are encountered by many factors that may result in decisions that may be contrary to the best interests of the patient, parents, or use of shared societal resources. These moral risks centre around the selection process, informed consent, decision making in the operating room, and post-operative maintenance of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Consideration of such risks is affected by questions of haemodynamic stability, haematologic compromise, neurologic status, and family concerns. We conclude that thorough understanding of the relevant scientific literature, heightened awareness of moral risks, and incorporation of ethical tenets in clinical deliberation will guide the clinician to do the right thing.