The Intersection of Bioethics, Law, and Surgical Procedures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.1658Keywords:
Bioethics, Surgical procedures, Informed consent, Medical law, Patient autonomyAbstract
Bioethics, law, and medical processes all come together in this important area of study to look at tough moral problems, changing laws, and higher standards in the field of surgery. Robots, processes helped by artificial intelligence, and less invasive methods are some of the new surgery technologies that have made it harder for patients to protect their privacy, liberty, and right to consent. Laws that are meant to protect patients' rights, make sure they give their permission, and stop doctors from acting badly are having a bigger effect on surgery. When doctors think about the social and cultural effects of medical treatments, bioethics is very important because it helps them make morally sound choices that put patients' health and safety first. Like the duty of care and responsibility, the rules that govern medical processes need to change quickly to keep up with the progress in medicine. Who, for example, makes decisions about why artificial intelligence should be used in surgery and why new treatments should be used? A complex set of rules and principles is also needed to protect the rights of disadvantaged groups like children, the old, and people who have trouble seeing. This point also stresses how important it is to set clear rules to protect people who are having surgery from being exploited or hurt and to make sure that processes are honest and open. An investigation into the moral and legal rules that govern surgery procedures and how new technologies are changing these areas is presented. Its goal is to give an acceptable way to do moral surgery that is also legal and keeps patients safe.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Lambert, A.; Norouzi, N.; Bruder, G.; Welch, G. A Systematic Review of Ten Years of Research on Human Interaction with Social Robots. Int. J. Hum.–Computer Interact. 2020, 36, 1804–1817.
Malle, B.F.; Scheutz, M.; Arnold, T.; Voiklis, J.; Cusimano, C. Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, OR, USA, 2–5 March 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 117–124.
Niemelä, M.; Heikkinen, S.; Koistinen, P.; Laakso, K.; Melkas, H.; Kyrki, V. Robots and the Future of Welfare Services—A Finnish Roadmap; Aalto University: Otaniemi, Finland, 2021.
Morgan, A.A.; Abdi, J.; Syed, M.A.; Kohen, G.E.; Barlow, P.; Vizcaychipi, M.P. Robots in healthcare: A scoping review. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2022, 3, 271–280.
Broadbent, E.; Garrett, J.; Jepsen, N.; Ogilvie, V.L.; Ahn, H.S.; Robinson, H.; Peri, K.; Kerse, N.; Rouse, P.; Pillai, A.; et al. Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e8640.
Vallor, S. Carebots and caregivers: Sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. In Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2020; pp. 137–154.
Boada, J.P.; Maestre, B.R.; Genís, C.T. The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101726.
Dawe, J.; Sutherland, C.; Barco, A.; Broadbent, E. Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? A scoping review. BMJ Paediatr. Open 2019, 3, e000371.
Wagner, E.; Borycki, E.M. The Use of Robotics in Dementia Care: An Ethical Perspective. In Informatics and Technology in Clinical Care and Public Health; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 362–366.
Riek, L.D. Healthcare robotics. Commun. ACM 2017, 60, 68–78.
Fiske, A.; Henningsen, P.; Buyx, A. Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e13216.
de Graaf, M.M.A.; Allouch, S.B.; van Dijk, J.A.G.M. Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact. Stud. Soc. Behav. Commun. Biol. Artif. Syst. 2016, 17, 461–490.
Fosch-Villaronga, E.; Poulsen, A. Sex care robots. Exploring the potential use of sexual robot technologies for disabled and elder care. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 2020, 11, 1–18
Vallès-Peris, N.; Domènech, M. Caring in the in-between: A proposal to introduce responsible AI and robotics to healthcare. AI Soc. 2021, 38, 1685–1695.
McLennan, S.; Fiske, A.; Tigard, D.; Müller, R.; Haddadin, S.; Buyx, A. Embedded ethics: A proposal for integrating ethics into the development of medical AI. BMC Med. Ethics 2022, 23, 6.
Naik, N.; Hameed, B.; Shetty, D.K.; Swain, D.; Shah, M.; Paul, R.; Aggarwal, K.; Ibrahim, S.; Patil, V.; Smriti, K.; et al. Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: Who takes responsibility? Front. Surg. 2022, 9, 266.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
