Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation

Stahl, Bernd Carsten; Coeckelbergh, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018

Cited by 180 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Autonomous systems are characterised as systems capable of making decisions independently of human interference (Brodsky, 2016;Collingwood, 2017), but, unlike mere automation, they can make these decisions while facing uncertainty (Danks & London, 2017). Autonomous systems have been developed in different domains, including warfare, personal care (Arkin, 2013;Pineau, Montemerlo, Pollack, Roy, & Thrun, 2003;Stahl & Coeckelbergh, 2016;Sukman, 2015) and transport. AVs rely on artificial intelligence (AI), sensors and big data to analyse information, adapt to changing circumstances and handle complex situations as a substitute for human judgement, as the latter would no longer be needed for conventional vehicle operations such as lane-changing, parking, collision avoidance and braking (Long, Hanford, Janrathitikarn, Sinsley, & Miller, 2007;West, 2016).…”

Section: Background To Avsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The benefits of autonomous vehicles (AVs) are widely acknowledged, but there are concerns about the extent of these benefits and AV risks and unintended consequences. In this article, we first examine AVs and different categories of the technological risks associated with them. We then explore strategies that can be adopted to address these risks, and explore emerging responses by governments for addressing AV risks. Our analyses reveal that, thus far, governments have in most instances avoided stringent measures in order to promote AV developments and the majority of responses are non-binding and focus on creating councils or working groups to better explore AV implications. The US has been active in introducing legislations to address issues related to privacy and cybersecurity. The UK and Germany, in particular, have enacted laws to address liability issues; other countries mostly acknowledge these issues, but have yet to implement specific strategies. To address privacy and cybersecurity risks strategies ranging from introduction or amendment of non-AV specific legislation to creating working groups have been adopted. Much less attention has been paid to issues such as environmental and employment risks, although a few governments have begun programmes to retrain workers who might be negatively affected. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Background To Avsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technoethical inquiry into social robots encourages thinking about how we can theorise the moral standing of non-humans (Gunkel, 2017), aids the critical integration of affective elements into robots (Stahl et al, 2014), enriched by the feminist-inspired, contextually-oriented ethics of care (Johansson, 2013;Van Wyberghe, 2016. TR also feeds into responsible research and innovation practices: social robots in caring contexts, like carebots for the elderly, require negotiated ethical deliberation from all stakeholders on their appropriate form, function, role and relationship capabilities if they are to benefit all parties rather than diminish social flourishing (Stahl & Coeckelbergh 2016;Stahl et al, 2014;Van Wynsberghe, 2016.…”

Section: Background: Technoethics Robotics Social Robots and A Potentimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, sexbots could be customised to be vulnerable to human mistreatment (Mackenzie, 2014). This paper on sexbots falls within the roboethics strand of technoethics inquiring into artificial moral agents (DeBaets, 2014;Pana, 2012;Sullins, 2009;Wareham, 2013), robotic moral personhood and rights (Allen & Wallach, 2014;Coeckelbergh 2010;Gerdes, 2015;Yampolskiy, 2012), whether specific ethical theories or critical ethical faculties should be operationalized in robots (Abney, 2014;Bringsjord, 2017;Bringsjord & Taylor, 2014;Hughes, 2014;Majot & Yampolskiy, 2014), ethical design (Stahl et al, 2014;Van Wynsberghe 2016, and the optimal roles of specific social robots like carebots (Coeckelbergh, 2012;Stahl & Coeckelbergh, 2016;Van Wysberghe 2013. Social robots are machines placed in situations requiring ethical decisions from robots, designers and users, raising crucial technoethical issues over how to ensure mutually beneficial AI.…”

Section: Background: Technoethics Robotics Social Robots and A Potentimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many more questions arise. These need to be carefully thought through on an iterative basis in conversations involving robot designers, ethicists, manufacturers, policymakers, TR scholars and other stakeholders like the general public, in order to reflect responsible innovation practices as described for carebots (Stahl & Coeckelbergh, 2016;Stahl et al, 2014;Van Wynsberghe 2016. Moreover, as sexbots will be sentient, self-aware, feeling entities fully capable of forming opinions and reflecting on their experience, their voices should be part of the conversation.…”

Section: Sexbots Customisation and Inclusion In The Moral Circlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sexbots

Mackenzie

2018

International Journal of Technoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes how sexbots: sentient, self-aware, feeling artificial moral agents created soon as customised potential sexual/intimate partners provoke crucial questions for technoethics. Coeckelbergh's model of human/robotic relations as co-evolving to their mutual benefit through mutual vulnerability is applied to sexbots. As sexbots have a sustainable claim to moral standing, benefits and vulnerabilities inherent in human/sexbots relations must be identified and addressed for both parties. Humans' and sexbots' vulnerabilities are explored, drawing on the philosophy and social science of dehumanisation and inclusion/exclusion. This article argues humans as creators owe a duty of care to sentient beings they create. Responsible innovation practices involving stakeholders debating ethicolegal conundrums pertaining to human duties to sexbots, and sexbots' putative interests, rights and responsibilities are essential. These validate the legal recognition of sexbots, the protection of their interests through regulatory oversight and ethical limitations on customisation which must be put in place.

show abstract

“…This raises significant fears about human robot interactions, the potential for reduced quality of care and the alienation of the ageing person to an inhuman periphery 33. Against such concerns, Stahl and Coeckelbergh emphasise a positive role for robot caregivers and suggest that critics ignore novel and positive modes of interaction between robots and ageing persons 34. Robots and other emerging technologies pose significant questions for the meaning in the lives of persons qua ageing persons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the ethics of ageing?

Wareham

2017

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applied ethics is home to numerous productive subfields such as procreative ethics, intergenerational ethics and environmental ethics. By contrast, there is far less ethical work on ageing, and there is no boundary work that attempts to set the scope for ‘ageing ethics’ or the ‘ethics of ageing’. Yet ageing is a fundamental aspect of life; arguably even more fundamental and ubiquitous than procreation. To remedy this situation, I examine conceptions of what the ethics of ageing might mean and argue that these conceptions fail to capture the requirements of the desired subfield. The key reasons for this are, first, that they view ageing as something that happens only when one is old, thereby ignoring the fact that ageing is a process to which we are all subject, and second that the ageing person is treated as an object in ethical discourse rather than as its subject. In response to these shortcomings I put forward a better conception, one which places the ageing person at the centre of ethical analysis, has relevance not just for the elderly and provides a rich yet workable scope. While clarifying and justifying the conceptual boundaries of the subfield, the proposed scope pleasingly broadens the ethics of ageing beyond common negative associations with ageing.

show abstract

Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation

Cited by 180 publications

References 31 publications

Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks

Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks

Sexbots

What is the ethics of ageing?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About