Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to describe two new philosophical problems for robo-ethics. When one considers the kinds of philosophical problems that arise in the emerging field of robo-ethics, one typically thinks of issues that concern agency, autonomy, rights, consciousness, warfare/military applications, employment and work, the impact for elder-care, and many others. All of these philosophical problems are well known. However, this paper describes two new philosophical problems for robo-ethics that have not been previously addressed in the literature. The author's view is that if these philosophical problems are not solved, some aspects of robo-ethics research and development will be challenged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]