The Legal and Political Aspects of Using Robotics in Surgery - Essay Example

? The Legal and Political Aspects of Using Robotics in Surgery of The Legal and Political Aspects of Using Robotics in Surgery Hayden and Hadfield (2001) state that a robot can be defined as a mechanical instrument that is used to perform various tasks automatically or with the aid of a remote control. Robots are designed to have various characteristics such as interacting with different physical beings, they also have the ability to distinguish information from the physical beings and respond to various stimuli. Robots have been used extensively in hospitals to perform two major tasks which include the use of the robot to help the patient who is suffering from a particular disease or those robots that help in the overall functions within the hospitals like in pharmacies, as well as hospitals. It is very critical for robots to have sensors and ability to process and assimilate the information that is fed to it from the external control. The sensors are used by the robot to obtain the information from the patient’s environment but deep cognitive ability is not important for various reactive behaviors; instead, on board intelligence comes in handy when the robot is expected to perform various tasks autonomously (Hayden & Hadfield, 2001). Various robots which appear like toys have been used in the hospital for various functions for example the robot PARO which resembled a baby seal was used in the hospital for therapeutic functions such as helping the patient to reduce stress; replicate cognitive activities, as well as enabling the patient improve his or her socialization abilities. Robots that are assistive in nature are used in coaching physical therapy. In this research the legal and political aspects of using robotics in surgery will be discussed in length (Young, 2010). The use of robots in hospitals has brought various moral issues in the society today. The use of robots has led to the over dependence in technology which can bring adverse impacts in the case of failure of these technology. Over time, robots have become more efficient than human beings in various hospital operations like surgeries which have led to the diminishing of the medical skills by the medical practitioners (Young, 2010). There is high tendency for errors to be performed by these medical practitioners because of the lack of practice in their areas of specialization. There is also the issue of job displacement where the robots replace the use of human labor in hospitals. In the light of the above, it can be concluded that robots have made various doctors lose their jobs in their areas of specialization. Unlike the olden times when the doctors could perform all the roles in the operation room, doctors can now perform very few tasks in the surgical room thanks to the robots. Some people have insufficient funds to access health thus the use of robots in the health care system will make treatment costs much higher thus rendering the poor people hopeless (Hayden & Hadfield, 2001). According to Moor (2005), cultural issues also play a very important role in the use of robots in a surgical procedure in that different people have different cultures. Some people would prefer the doctor to entirely perform a medical procedure on him or her rather than indulging a robot. Some cultures may not be in a position to trust that the robot will successfully perform a surgical procedure, fearing that an error might occur during the process, thus, endangering their lives. Another ethical issue that exists in the use of robots is the difficulty in coining down the specific theory that can be used in programming specific code of ethics that will help in directing the behavior of the robots. Another ethical issue is the ability to operate the robots within a specified setting. The doctors who are able to use the robot in performing various surgical procedures must have adequate knowledge on the performance of robots in order to use these robots (Young, 2010). The issue here is the difficulty in using the robots effectively in a hospital setting due to the lack of knowledge on their operation. Robots also have an impact on the human relationships in that people tend to be overly dependent on the robots for the service that the robot is performing. Doctors seem to be attached to these robots since they help them in performing complicated tasks. Robots that offer various types of therapy to the patients might make the patients to be attached to them as in the case where a patient literally cries when the robot meets its end (Faust, 2007). There are several aspects of law that can be applied to robots and their functioning. The law of product liability can be applied to robots in that robots are treated as commercial products which depend on human beings for their normal functioning (Faust, 2007). In the advancement in the technology used in making these robots, they have become more autonomous than they were in the past thus the law can treat these robots as quasi-agents acting on behalf of human beings thus they are able to enjoy partial rights of what human beings enjoy. Another feature is the diminished responsibility where robots being the agents to human beings are not considered with full responsibility for the errors that occur in a surgical procedure but instead the person who is directing the robot to perform the task is blamed for such errors. The last aspect that applies to robots in law is the corporate punishment which occurs as a result of wrongdoing in product liability (Dyrness, 2002). The use robots in hospital settings are governed by various laws and regulations. Robots are prone to errors since these devices do not have minds of their own but they depend on the control by a human being. Errors that might occur cause serious results like the death of the patients (Colin, Vamer & Zinser, 2000). Various laws like the product liability laws have not been tested on the robots used in hospitals thus the people that are held accountable in case of an accident resulting from the use of the robots is not clearly defined. In the light of the above it can be noted that civil law applies to robots and the perfect examples are the companies that are involved in the manufacture of these robots like the Furby and AIBO which employ qualified lawyers to advise them on legal responsibilities on how to manufacture the most effective robots. The act of negligence will occur when a doctor fails to do something that he or she was legally bound by the law and that he failed to do so leading to harm of the patient (Bar-Cohen & Hanson 2009). The act of negligence occurs in two main forms where the first form of negligence takes place when a responsible person fails to warn an individual on certain looming danger, while the second form of negligence occurs when an individual fails to take proper care in using the robots in the operation room. The manufacturer of the robot can also be liable for the errors that occur in the operation room because of their negligence. A perfect example is when the manufacturer fails to put the right instructions while packaging the robots that concern its operation, thus, causing errors in the surgical procedure (Hemal & Menon 2010). The main issue with the practical robot ethics is that there is a problem in determining the actions that constitute proper care to avoid negligence and the various risks that are considered foreseeable or those that are unforeseeable. This is because of the complexity in the future interactions between the robots and the patients as well as the extent of independence of the robot from control by human beings (Bar-Cohen & Hanson, 2009). This feature, therefore, makes it difficult for the manufacturer to state the foreseeable risks in the operation of the robot and errors can occur anytime in the operation of these robots. Robots are designed to perform specific tasks within a particular setting which becomes difficult to design a particular robot that is able to perform varied tasks. This can be attributed to the fact that robots are made from a particular set of codes that will define their specifications and functions thus altering these codes will imply that the robot’s functionality is completely altered (Bar-Cohen & Hanson, 2009). Hemal & Menon (2010) point out that through the advancement in technology, robots become more autonomous and it is necessary to assign them responsibility if these robots are able to show various features that define personhood. The ongoing work in integrating the robots with human brains is unethical since human beings have rights and, thus, invoking such rights would mean that the functions of human beings are totally impaired. These robots are treated by the law as quasi beings who act on behalf of an individual referred to as the law of agency thus the legal responsibility for the actions that are performed by robots lies in the individual who directs the root to perform the task. In the light of the above, it is right to state that the person who directs the robot to perform a certain task is responsible for the errors that occur in the process of performing the specified task (Colin, Vamer & Zinser 2000). In the use of robotics, responsibilities are divided accordingly among the various parties that are involved for example the manufacturer of the robot, the person who controls it and the robot itself. This legal law however should be made explicit in order to avoid the implication of one partner when the cause of the damage was caused by a second partner. A perfect example is when the law exerts much burden on the owner of the robot which will automatically prevent the use of robots in the hospital setting in an effort to avoid being implicated. This law might also protect the manufacturers who might be responsible for designing robots which are not of good standard and have poor designs, thus, limiting their performance (Young, 2010). Moor (2005) points out that the errors that occur in the use of robots in the hospital have become a major concern to the people in the society. The application of various technologies needs to be safe and in the case of robots the major concern is in their software and design. The people who are involved in the manufacture of these robots are imperfect beings who struggle to make a perfect part of complex software. Errors are bound to occur in the complex cods that are put together to produce a workable robot and hacking is also a likely problem that occurs in the use of computers where a malicious person endeavors to use the robots against other people for example a hacker can use a robot to perform various tasks which were not meant for that particular robot thus causing damage (Faust, 2007). There are various political aspects in relation to the use of robots in the surgical procedures that arise from controversies of whether it should continued to be used or abolished completely from use in the hospitals. Some acceptance issues that continue to be debated are the difficulty in measuring the outcome of the use of robots in surgical procedures. Rosen (2009) affirms that it usually takes a longer time to measure the durability of robotic procedures and being compared to the manual procedures. This delay is considered as prohibitive to the developers of the robotic systems as well as the patients who miss out in the potentially advanced care n the future. Another issue is the expenses which arise in the use of robotics since the manufacture of robots are very expensive thus making them not to be adopted for use in many hospitals. Bar-Cohen and Hanson (2009) assert that many patients are not able to raise the money that would enable them to undergo robotic surgery. On this note, the robots that are already developed are designed to perform specific tasks thus they are not flexible but with the improvement in technology, the development of robots which can perform varied tasks are expected to be developed. Safety is also another issue in the use of robots in surgery in that the system working of the robot can fail and cause harm to the patient. According to Rosen (2009), regulatory agencies require that the manufacturers of the robots should address the issue of safety in the clinical implementation so as to reduce accidents that might occur in a surgical procedure. Since the robots rely on the computer systems for control, there is no universally accepted technique that will guarantee safety in the use of these robots. The common technique that has been used to improve safety in the robotic surgery is the use of both passive and active forms of safety mechanisms in the overall design of the robot. An example is the AESOP robot that was designed in such a manner that the robot arm was connected to the endoscope throughout the magnetic coupling. The incision helped in preventing any lateral motion of the endoscope when the robot moved it above the patient. The robot becomes inhibited from applying the lateral forces when the forces on the endoscope exceed the magnetic force and the endoscope disconnects and falls on the patient (Hemal & Menon, 2010). Safety and errors in the use of robots in the hospital have become a major concern for the people in the society. The application of various technologies needs to be safe and in the case of robots the major concern is in their software and design. The people who are involved in the manufacture of these robots are imperfect beings who struggle to make a perfect part of complex software. Errors are bound to occur in the complex cods that are put together to produce a workable robot and hacking is also a likely problem that occurs in the use of computers where a malicious person endeavors to use the robots against other people for example a hacker can use a robot to perform various tasks which were not meant for that particular robot thus causing damage (Faust, 2007). In conclusion, the use of robots in surgery comes with various benefits, as well as disadvantages. The robots are able to perform complex procedures that human beings are not able to perform. The robots do not get exhausted quickly, thus, they can work for longer period of times which greatly helps in saving lives. However, errors can occur in the handling of these robots in the surgical procedures, thus, producing negative impacts on the patient. Legal frameworks help in governing the inadequacies of these robots, thus, reducing errors. The manufactures of these robots should give clear specifications of robot handling where the users will have the right instructions on how the robot will be directed to perform certain tasks, thus, reducing the rate at which errors occur in a hospital setting. The doctors should have adequate knowledge on robot handling in order to avoid the unnecessary errors that might occur during the surgical procedure. Since some individuals are against the use of robots in various surgical procedures due to their culture it is important consider their reservations of not using the robot during their operation procedures as a way of upholding their rights and dignity. The law should be clear on the person who is responsible for the errors that occur during the performance of a robotic surgery to avoid the instances where the operator of the robot is blamed when the manufacturer was the one to blame or vice versa. References Bar-Cohen, Y. & Hanson, D. (2009). The coming robot revolution: Expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machines. New York, NY: Springer. Colin, A., Vamer, G. & Zinser, J. (2000). Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12(2), 251-261. Dyrness, C. (2002). Author discusses robotic future, book in Raleigh, N.C., area. McClatchy - Tribune Business News, pp. 1-1. Retrieved 5th June 5, 2012 http://search.proquest.com/docview/465631408?accountid=45049 Faust, R. A. (2007). Robotics in surgery: History, current and future applications. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Hayden, T. & Hadfield, P. (2001). The age of robots were close to making humanlike machines. It’s time to reckon with the promises and perils; Tokyo. U.S. News & World Report, 130(16), 45-50. Retrieved 5th June 5, 2012. http://search.proquest.com/docview/274816922?accountid=45049 Hemal, A. K. & Menon, M. (2010). Robotics in genito-urinary surgery. New York: Springer Verlag. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111-111. doi: 10.1007/s10676-006-0008-0 Rosen, J. (2009). Surgical robotics: Systems, applications, and visions. New York: Springer. Young, M. S. (2010). Artificial intelligence, telemedicine, and robotics in health care. Scitech Lawyer, 6(4), 14. Retrieved 5th June 5, 2012 http://search.proquest.com/docview/503100897?accountid=45049 Read More