WHO AI Health Ethics
WHO Ethics and Governance of AI for Health
WHO guidance emphasizing mental health AI often has methodological/quality flaws requiring extra scrutiny. Six ethical principles for health AI.
Jurisdiction
International
Enacted
Pending
Effective
Jun 28, 2021
Enforcement
TBD
Why It Matters
WHO explicitly flags mental health AI for extra scrutiny. Six principles framework. Influential in healthcare regulation.
At a Glance
Applies to
Who Must Comply
- Health AI developers and deployers (voluntary)
Obligations fall on:
Safety Provisions
- Principle 1: Protect autonomy
- Principle 2: Promote human wellbeing and safety
- Principle 3: Ensure transparency, explainability, intelligibility
- Principle 4: Foster responsibility and accountability
- Principle 5: Ensure inclusiveness and equity
- Principle 6: Promote responsive and sustainable AI
- Specific caution: Mental health AI often has methodological flaws
- Extra scrutiny required for vulnerable users
Primary Source
WHO
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
View on map
International
Focus Areas
Cite This
APA
International. (2021). WHO Ethics and Governance of AI for Health.
Related Regulations
ISO 42001
First certifiable international standard for AI management systems. Uses Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology. Third-party certification available; major AI systems have achieved certification.
ISO 23894
AI risk management guidance complementing ISO 31000. Lifecycle risk management; audit/procurement language.
OECD AI Due Diligence
Non-binding OECD guidance applying the OECD's six-step responsible business conduct (RBC) due-diligence process to enterprises across the AI value chain, providing practical recommendations for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for adverse human-rights and societal impacts of AI systems.
UN/ITU AI & Child Rights Statement
Non-binding multilateral statement signed by thirteen UN and international organisations setting out principles for protecting children's rights in the design, deployment, and governance of AI systems, including provisions on harmful content, age assurance, transparency, and child-rights impact assessments.
CA SB 1276
Amends California's sexual-exploitation-of-a-child offence (Penal Code Section 311.3) so that it covers digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated matter depicting a person under 18 engaged in sexual conduct, and adds knowingly downloading, streaming or accessing such matter through electronic or digital media to the prohibited conduct. It makes the same extension to the definition of sexual exploitation that triggers mandated reporting under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Section 11165.1).
CA SB 503
Requires developers and deployers of AI clinical decision support systems used by health facilities, clinics and physician practices to make reasonable efforts to identify systems with a known or reasonably foreseeable risk of biased impacts on people with protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers an intended-use and risk statement plus documentation on training data, evaluation and data governance; deployers must regularly monitor the systems and mitigate.
Last updated January 22, 2026. Verify against primary sources before relying on this information.