The development of e-health promises significant improvements in our health management. However, like any innovation, it is not without risks that need to be considered. The Observatory for Innovation and Society has produced a report describing the technologies implemented and the ethical issues they raise. This report was presented during a webinar held on June 25, 2025. \n\nThe report summarizes e-health, a convergence of digital technology and healthcare pathways, which concerns prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and follow-up care. It relies on tele-consultation, medical websites and forums, physical activity tracking devices, diagnostic aid software, including those using artificial intelligence, prognosis aids, and prescription tracking. It does not include the contribution of digital technology to drug research and development. \n\nThe benefits are undeniable in terms of access to care or the use of new tools (automated radiology analyses are a typical example). The use of these technologies is developing, and overall, health should improve as a result—for the majority, at least. \n\nNonetheless, this development poses ethical questions of a new magnitude. Among the main points highlighted in the report, in line with the social thought of the Church: \n\nRisk of exclusion: The use of these tools first raises the question of equal access for everyone, particularly for the most vulnerable who are often furthest from digital technology due to lack of basic skills or the inability to use the Internet. \nReduction of human beings: The technocratic approach to health, sometimes technicist, leads to considering humans as "digitizable" entities. Thus, they are reduced to data that algorithms can analyze to decide on treatment, thereby neglecting the infinite dignity of the human person. \nRisk of abuse of power: The question arises of who will hold the medical data and what use will be made of it. Private entities, very concerned with their profitability and perhaps less with the ethical use of these data, are often faster and more agile than public social protection systems, and will therefore be the holders of our health data, which could give them exorbitant power. \nEthical conflict between equity and utility: It is not new in medicine to categorize or prioritize patients to adapt to limited resources. But improving diagnostic and especially prognostic means, which will take into account the disease, but also the patient, their past or foreseeable behaviors, and their genome, will greatly increase the dilemma between a utilitarian choice (for the majority) and an "equitable" approach based on the equal dignity of individuals and therefore on their equal access to care. \nDeterioration of relationships: The increasingly digitized healthcare pathway may degrade direct or "real" communication between patients and caregivers, distanced by screens and machines. This phenomenon is not specific to e-health, but can we conceive that the desired improvement of health goes hand in hand with a degradation of human relationships, which are one of the three pillars of good health (along with physical and mental health)? \nQuestion of responsibility: The advent of e-health profoundly disrupts the foundations of traditional medical responsibility. The actors to consider in the context of e-health are numerous: caregivers, tool designers, i.e., primarily software publishers and website hosts, patients, contributors on medical sites or social networks, and finally, regulatory actors. "Graduated responsibility" models should develop, where each actor assumes a share of responsibility proportional to their degree of control and expertise. A praise of "everyone responsible." \n\nFaced with these challenges, the report makes a few individual and collective behavioral proposals that can help address these challenges. Among them, we can cite: \n\nEnsuring that these new techniques do not replace the older ones without being accessible to everyone, particularly the weakest and the most vulnerable, and therefore contribute to their support. \nReminding that humans are not, and will never be, digital machines, not because digital can never reach the immense complexity of humans, but because for us Christians, they are created in the image of God and therefore bearers of the divine. \nPromoting true and rich face-to-face contact. We must favor this direct exchange with caregivers and give them more trust than we attribute, somewhat too easily, to machines and algorithms.