Robotics in Health and Elderly Care
When looking at the future we see that computers tie hand in hand with growth of our society. As time progresses computers and robotics will become more and more involved in our daily lives. One area in which we should focus on is health care and elderly care. These are two of the most “human” professions in society currently, what would it mean for robots to become a part of these professions. How can a robot perform the same operations that a human can, would it be more safe, would it be cheaper, how would robots take care of the elderly, would robots give the same level of emotional and physical care to someone in need as a human could? Robotics in these areas can function properly, give reasonable care up to a point in which humans can and can even benefit the professions.
Robotics in Healthcare:
When looking at health care specifically we can see the different systems that are possible for robotics in the profession. One example is the idea of “trauma pods”, the journal Robotic Surgery: On the Cutting Edge of Ethics discusses the idea of trauma pods. They are pods which can be delivered to disaster zones and danger zones in which surgery is required but is too dangerous for paramedics to operate in. What they do is that they are a remote operating table in which doctors can use tools and robots to remotely operate on a patient. The journal explains
“Consider, for example, an idea proposed by the nonprofit research institute SRI International. With funding from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, SRI developed a prototype “trauma pod,” a portable covered operating table that enables surgeons working at a remote location to perform acute stabilization procedures on wounded soldiers who might otherwise die waiting for treatment. Robots would fetch a wounded soldier from the battlefield and place him in a trauma pod to undergo remotely controlled scrubbing (cleanliness is one of the great challenges of battlefield surgery), diagnostic tests (including x-rays), and selected surgical intervention.”
They go on to state that at times many people die in ambulances heading to hospitals where they have to be worked on, this would allow for those people to be worked on at the site of injury and prevent the time between the injury site and hospital. They go on to discuss the idea of robots not being operated by people to do the operations, and just rely on programming to operate on patients.
The issue with this is that the modern robots are large, bulky and hard to maneuver. There have been a number of deaths have have been caused by surgery robots. According to a study reported on by the BBC there have been 144 deaths due to surgery robots.
“A study into the safety of surgical robots has linked the machines’ use to at least 144 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries over a 14-year period in the US.” and “Their paper says 144 deaths, 1,391 injuries and 8,061 device malfunctions were recorded out of a total of more than 1.7 million robotic procedures carried out between January 2000 and December 2013.”
This is a decent concern that the producers of this technology have to take into consideration. If the robots used in surgery cause more damage than they would fix or cause deaths during surgery then can we truly consider them safe to use? Most people would want human hands to operate on them instead of an independent machine. How much moral agency and independence can we give to a automated surgery robot? The journal Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation questions this.
“Hence when a moral problem arises within the human–robot interaction and within the healthcare situation, there seems to be a problem: the robot is given (more) autonomy, in the sense of doing tasks by itself without human intervention, but does not seem to have the capacity of moral agency: it can do all kinds of things, but unlike humans does not have the capacity to reflect on the ethical quality of what it does.”
Their response was to say that some philosophers believe that the robots should be programmed with some level of ethical judgment or that humans should be involved in the process all the way. I personally would agree with humans being involved. Computers can make decisions, but we cannot say they can have the same level of ethical decision making like people do. They are merely programmed to do certain actions when under different criteria, and humans can decide what it morally right to do. In the end robots do belong in healthcare, its just that they need a level of human supervision and/or involvement.
Robotics in Elderly Care
When it comes to elderly care we run into the same issue, how can robots give the same amount of emotional care to those who need it? One major example of robots in elderly care is the Paro robot that assists and causes positive effects for dementia patients and people in nursing homes. It is able to give animal therapy to those in which cannot necessarily do animal therapy due to complications. From the Paro website the Paro robot “allows the documented benefits of animal therapy to be administered to patients in environments such as hospitals and extended care facilities where live animals present treatment or logistical difficulties”. Paro evokes the emotions one might have toward a pet and possibly a grandchild according to some studies. The study Interaction with the Paro robot may reduce psychophysiological stress responses discusses this.
“Four patients whose total score was eight showed improvement. In contrast, no improvement was observed in patients whose score was lower than seven (except for patient B). As for their interactions with Paro, for example, patient K treated Paro like her grandchild. She hugged and spoke to it while smiling during the robot therapy. She felt Paro was so cute that she recommended it to a patient seated at her side. She said, ‘I want to sleep with Paro,’ and ‘I’m never tired of Paro.’ On the other hand, patient A did not try to interact with Paro, and said, ‘It seems to be alive, but it is not a real animal.’”
The article also explains that some of the patients they had tested here in this quote has positive cortical neuron changes, and increases in cortical neuron activity when they were interacting and after interacting with the Paro robot. A few others had felt as though the robot wasn’t the same as an actual animal and some felt that animals themselves were not good, but this shows that robots in elderly care are able to function. The creators of robots in elderly care do need to understand that not all people would be comfortable with interacting with robots, that are either robotic in appearance or lifelike. The profession will always require human interaction and workers, but robots can be of assistance within the field itself. We saw that a number of participants enjoyed the company of the Paro robot.
There is then the addition of the Pepper humanoid robot, which helps to combat loneliness inside of nursing homes. It is a small humanoid robot that moves around on wheels, has arms and a screen in the center of its chest. It is able to recognize human faces and emotions and can socialize with people. From the softbank website the developers of pepper:
“Pepper is the world’s first social humanoid robot able to recognize faces and basic human emotions. Pepper was optimized for human interaction and is able to engage with people through conversation and his touch screen.”
Pepper works in nursing homes in Japan to help the elderly socialize. Japan has an aging population with not as many people working in elderly care so robots are being developed to assist those who are working in elderly care and those in nursing homes. A CNN article went over the robot, explaining that it was designed to be “culturally competent” meaning that it can respond to culturally specific needs. The article also explains that the robot does a good job in its work and how it has great potential for the future.
“Dr. Chris Papadopoulos, principal lecturer in public health at the UK’s University of Bedfordshire, was the lead author of the evaluation of the three-year project. In an online statement, he described the study as ‘groundbreaking,’ adding: ‘The results show that using the CARESSES artificial intelligence in robots such as Pepper has real potential benefit to a world that is witnessing more people living longer with fewer people to look after them.’”
We can see some other concerns that different kinds of care robots can create the fear of loneliness and the fear of inhumane treatment for those being taken care of by robots. A survey was conducted from Finnish and Japanese elderly care workers and their attitudes on elderly care robots. The Japanese workers showed a more positive attitude towards the robots and the Finnish workers showed a more negative attitude towards the robots. From the journal: Care Personnel’s Attitudes and Fears Toward Care Robots in Elderly Care: A Comparison of Data from the Care Personnel in Finland and Japan
“The results show that there are also certain fears related to the introduction of care robots, in particular among the Finnish care personnel. Thirty percent of the Finnish care personnel totally agreed with the statement “I’m afraid that the introduction of care robots would make the treatment of elderly people inhumane,” and about 40% partially agreed with it.”… “Some care personnel were also afraid that the introduction of care robots would add to the loneliness of elderly people, but the study data showed significant national differences (p = .001, r = .192). Fifty‐seven percent of Finnish care personnel, but only 32% of Japanese care personnel, partially or totally agreed with the statement ‘I’m afraid that the introduction of care robots would add to the loneliness of elderly people.’”
These attitudes are reasonable, many would be concerned with robots taking care of the elderly. How can a robot give the same amount of emotional care and connections that a human can. Would a conversation with a robot be the same as a conversation as a human, how different would it be/feel? This is a major concern that developers of robots should take into account when designing robots to take care of the elderly. They have to be able to connect with people and ensure that there isn’t loneliness and inhumane treatment.
As society progresses, and robots become more common we can see that they are able to be useful in fields that require a more “human” touch. Robotics have a place in health care and elderly care, but they have to be done in a way that is non-intrusive and safe for patients. The creators of these robots have to understand that these robots have to be able to provide emotional care, and be as careful as a person could be so that they don’t cause more harm than they are preventing.
Sources Referenced:
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2013). Robotic surgery: On the cutting edge of ethics. Computer, 46(1), 56–64. doi:10.1109/mc.2012.424
Robotic surgery linked to 144 deaths in the US. (2015, July 22). Retrieved April 28, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33609495
Stahl, B. C., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018
PARO therapeutic Robot. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2021, from http://www.parorobots.com/
Pepper the humanoid and programmable robot: SoftBank Robotics. (n.d.). Retrieved May 04, 2021, from https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper
Kolirin, L. (2020, September 08). Talking robots could be used to combat loneliness and boost mental health in care homes. Retrieved May 04, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/health/care-robots-wellness-gbr-scli-intl/index.html
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Musha, T., & Kimura, S. (2008). Robot therapy for elders affected by dementia. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 27(4), 53–60. doi:10.1109/memb.2008.919496
Coco, K., Kangasniemi, M., & Rantanen, T. (2018). Care personnel’s attitudes and FEARS TOWARD Care robots in ELDERLY care: A comparison of data from the CARE personnel in Finland and Japan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(6), 634–644. doi:10.1111/jnu.12435