Search

This paper intervenes in the dichotomous debate on the 'privatisation' of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Whilst research suggests that involving private‐sector actors and principles deviates from the founding aims of the NHS to deliver equitable healthcare for all, the opposing argument to 'keep our NHS public' also limits understanding and alternative possibilities. Through focusing on maintaining overarching structures, these campaigns fail to address everyday medical practices that have long been critiqued by those allied with the sociology of health and illness. This paper draws on feminist critiques of public/private to expand the structural economic lens of mainstream political debates and explore how multiple forms of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital, operate in everyday healthcare practices. Through an historically‐informed ethnographic exploration of routine hip replacements, I find that capital itself emerges through relations between people and things, and that public/private boundaries play an integral role in forming these relations to instil value on particular patients and forms of labour, demarcating what kind of healthcare is given to whom. I therefore suggest future action should focus on assembling healthcare relations beyond the dualism of public/private categories, to create multiple safe places and relations for all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental health chatbots (MHCBs) designed to support individuals in coping with mental health issues are rapidly advancing. Currently, these MHCBs are predominantly used in commercial rather than clinical contexts, but this might change soon. The question is whether this use is ethically desirable. This paper addresses a critical yet understudied concern: assuming that MHCBs cannot have genuine emotions, how this assumption may affect psychotherapy, and consequently the quality of treatment outcomes. We argue that if MHCBs lack emotions, they cannot have genuine (affective) empathy or utilise countertransference. Consequently, this gives reason to worry that MHCBs are (a) more liable to harm and (b) less likely to benefit patients than human therapists. We discuss some responses to this worry and conclude that further empirical research is necessary to determine whether these worries are valid. We conclude that, even if these worries are valid, it does not mean that we should never use MHCBs. By discussing the broader ethical debate on the clinical use of chatbots, we point towards how further research can help us establish ethical boundaries for how we should use mental health chatbots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]