implication of robotics in medical field
THE USE OF ROBOTICS IN THE MEDICAL FIELD:IMPLICATIONS IN SOCIAL CARE. INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS SOCIALLY ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS?
Socially assistive robotics are robots developed in order to assist patients in recovery, daily care procedure, rehabilitation, training needs, patients with social disabilities etc. It provides help in any way possible as long as it was programmed to do so. Socially assistive robotics establish interaction between the users and itself (socially assistive robots) through social interaction rather than physically. They (Social assistive robots) posses the following characteristics, which are uttering or sensing of emotions, they communicate in elevated dialogue (high-level), they create and retain social interactions or relationships, they use natural gestures to act or prompt remainder, they may learn or develop social capabilities, they posses very outstanding personality and characters.(available at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/362/1480/679.full ) SAR (socially assistive robots) have that promising potential to basically improve the quality of life, reduce the amount of stay in the hospital, prevent health problems etc which deals with all ages (ranging from children to elderly). Connection is a very important element in these robots because it must be aware of a human’s presence and understand when they (human being) want to interact; it nods to show a sign of agreement or disapproval. Basically, it assumes human to human interaction as its baseline ( Tapus, A. & Matarić, M.J. 2008, "Guest editorial: special issue on socially assistive robotics", Autonomous Robots, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 121-122.). They are capable of possessing natural appearing qualities socially. However, for how promisingly important these robots might be in the improval of quality of life it has its challenges and issues that should be raised as to quality of
WHAT IS SOCIALLY ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS?
Socially assistive robotics are robots developed in order to assist patients in recovery, daily care procedure, rehabilitation, training needs, patients with social disabilities etc. It provides help in any way possible as long as it was programmed to do so. Socially assistive robotics establish interaction between the users and itself (socially assistive robots) through social interaction rather than physically. They (Social assistive robots) posses the following characteristics, which are uttering or sensing of emotions, they communicate in elevated dialogue (high-level), they create and retain social interactions or relationships, they use natural gestures to act or prompt remainder, they may learn or develop social capabilities, they posses very outstanding personality and characters.(available at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/362/1480/679.full ) SAR (socially assistive robots) have that promising potential to basically improve the quality of life, reduce the amount of stay in the hospital, prevent health problems etc which deals with all ages (ranging from children to elderly). Connection is a very important element in these robots because it must be aware of a human’s presence and understand when they (human being) want to interact; it nods to show a sign of agreement or disapproval. Basically, it assumes human to human interaction as its baseline ( Tapus, A. & Matarić, M.J. 2008, "Guest editorial: special issue on socially assistive robotics", Autonomous Robots, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 121-122.). They are capable of possessing natural appearing qualities socially. However, for how promisingly important these robots might be in the improval of quality of life it has its challenges and issues that should be raised as to quality of
References: Al-Lamki, L. 2011, "Medical Tourism: Beneficence or maleficence?", Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 444. De Roubaix, J.A.M. 2011, "Beneficence, non-maleficence, distributive justice and respect for patient autonomy – reconcilable ends in aesthetic surgery?", Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 11-16. Dorsey, D. 2009, "Aggregation, Partiality, and the Strong Beneficence Principle", Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 139-157. Feil-Seifer, D Giannis Stamatellos, 2007, Computer Ethics: A Global Perspective, Jones and Bartlett, chapter 6 and 8, pp 66, 75-78 respectively. (http://www.informationweek.com/news/galleries/healthcare/patient/229100383) by Alison Diana, (2011) http://works.bepress.com/weng_yueh_hsuan/15 by Aaron Saenz, (2010) http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/362/1480/679.full#sec-7 by Kerstin Dautenhahn, (2007) Sharkey, A Tapus, A., Tapus, A., Mataric, M.J., Mataric, M.J., Scasselati, B. & Scassellati, B. 2007, "Socially assistive robotics [Grand Challenges of Robotics]", IEEE Robotics&Automation Magazine, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 35-42. Tapus, A. & Matarić, M.J. 2008, "Guest editorial: special issue on socially assistive robotics", Autonomous Robots, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 121-122. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, 2001, “Non maleficence”, PRINCIPLES OF BIOMEDICALS ETHICS, pp. 113-157