Predicting the Long-Term Effects of Human-Robot Interaction: A Reflection on Responsibility in Medical Robotics

This article addresses prospective and retrospective responsibility issues connected with medical robotics. It will be suggested that extant conceptual and legal frameworks are sufficient to address and properly settle most retrospective responsibility problems arising in connection with injuries caused by robot behaviours (which will be exemplified here by reference to harms occurred in surgical interventions supported by the Da Vinci robot, reported in the scientific literature and in the press). In addition, it will be pointed out that many prospective responsibility issues connected with medical robotics are nothing but well-known robotics engineering problems in disguise, which are routinely addressed by roboticists as part of their research and development activities: for this reason they do not raise particularly novel ethical issues. In contrast with this, it will be pointed out that novel and challenging prospective responsibility issues may emerge in connection with harmful events caused by normal robot behaviours. This point will be illustrated here in connection with the rehabilitation robot Lokomat.

[1]  Aude Billard,et al.  On the influence of symbols and myths in the responsibility ascription problem in roboethics - A roboticist’s perspective , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[2]  Bruce H Dobkin,et al.  An Accelerometry-Based Comparison of 2 Robotic Assistive Devices for Treadmill Training of Gait , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[3]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Robot ethics: a view from the philosophy of science , 2009 .

[4]  J. Hidler,et al.  Advances in the Understanding and Treatment of Stroke Impairment Using Robotic Devices , 2005, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[5]  Dejan B Popović,et al.  Neurorehabilitation technologies - present and future possibilities. Introduction. , 2009, NeuroRehabilitation.

[6]  Kevin C Zorn,et al.  Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[7]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Scientific models and ethical issues in hybrid bionic systems research , 2007, AI & SOCIETY.

[8]  Roberta B. Shepherd,et al.  Exercise and Training to Optimize Functional Motor Performance in Stroke: Driving Neural Reorganization? , 2001, Neural plasticity.

[9]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Ethical reflections on health care robotics , 2009 .

[10]  L. Borden,et al.  Mechanical failure rate of da Vinci robotic system. , 2007, The Canadian journal of urology.

[11]  Jules L. Coleman,et al.  Theories of Tort Law , 2003 .

[12]  M. Lerner,et al.  Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[13]  Kristian Wasen,et al.  Replacement of Highly Educated Surgical Assistants by Robot Technology in Working Life: Paradigm Shift in the Service Sector , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[14]  Keith A. Markus,et al.  Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation , 2007 .

[15]  J. Hidler,et al.  Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Lokomat in Subacute Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  R. Frisch,et al.  Moral Responsibility , 2017 .

[17]  J. Hidler,et al.  Alterations in muscle activation patterns during robotic-assisted walking. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  A. Barker,et al.  NON-INVASIVE MAGNETIC STIMULATION OF HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX , 1985, The Lancet.

[19]  Hykel Hosni,et al.  Machine Learning from Examples: A Non-Inductivist Analysis , 2005 .

[20]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. , 2008, The Canadian journal of urology.

[21]  T. Demott,et al.  Enhanced Gait-Related Improvements After Therapist- Versus Robotic-Assisted Locomotor Training in Subjects With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study , 2008, Stroke.

[22]  D. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury , 2009, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[23]  A T Barker,et al.  The history and basic principles of magnetic nerve stimulation. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[24]  TamburriniGuglielmo,et al.  Learning robots interacting with humans , 2008 .

[25]  V. Dietz,et al.  Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[26]  R. Meeusen,et al.  Effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training in persons with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[27]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Learning robots interacting with humans: from epistemic risk to responsibility , 2007, AI & SOCIETY.

[28]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Machine Experiments and Theoretical Modelling: from Cybernetic Methodology to Neuro-Robotics , 2005, Minds and Machines.

[29]  A. Mottrie,et al.  Failure of a robotic arm during da Vinci prostatectomy: a case report , 2008, Journal of robotic surgery.

[30]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Biorobotic Experiments for the Discovery of Biological Mechanisms* , 2007, Philosophy of Science.

[31]  Koon Ho Rha,et al.  A Unique Instrumental Malfunction during Robotic Prostatectomy , 2009, Yonsei medical journal.

[32]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Immediate and Long-Term Changes in Corticomotor Output in Response to Rehabilitation: Correlation with Functional Improvements in Chronic Stroke , 2004, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.