Disability 4.0: bioethical considerations on the use of embodied artificial intelligence.
artificial intelligence
disability
handicap
impairment
medical ethics
robotics
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
23
05
2024
accepted:
06
08
2024
medline:
2
9
2024
pubmed:
2
9
2024
entrez:
2
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Robotics and artificial intelligence have marked the beginning of a new era in the care and integration of people with disabilities, helping to promote their independence, autonomy and social participation. In this area, bioethical reflection assumes a key role at anthropological, ethical, legal and socio-political levels. However, there is currently a substantial diversity of opinions and ethical arguments, as well as a lack of consensus on the use of assistive robots, while the focus remains predominantly on the usability of products. The article presents a bioethical analysis that highlights the risk arising from using embodied artificial intelligence according to a functionalist model. Failure to recognize disability as the result of a complex interplay between health, personal and situational factors could result in potential damage to the intrinsic dignity of the person and human relations with healthcare workers. Furthermore, the danger of discrimination in accessing these new technologies is highlighted, emphasizing the need for an ethical approach that considers the social and moral implications of implementing embodied AI in the field of rehabilitation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39219800
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1437280
pmc: PMC11362069
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1437280Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 De Micco, Tambone, Frati, Cingolani and Scendoni.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.