Advertisement

Care Robots: From Tools of Care to Training Opportunities. Moral Considerations

  • Maurizio BalistreriEmail author
  • Francesco Casile
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1008)

Abstract

New technology should not perceived as a threat: on the contrary, it is a resource. It is our job to use it in the most appropriate way. Moreover, new technology can make a significant contribution to nurse training: for example, immersion into virtual reality with a visor and a simple application does not only allow one to experience fantastic adventures, but also to enjoy a relationship with the patient through simulation. Also, virtual reality can promote patient/teacher interaction: both, for example, can be projected or immersed in virtual reality, or the teacher can project his ‘virtual’ image into a real scenario. However, robots too could contribute to training nursing staff: health operator training courses today widely use dummies which are appropriately planned for standing training. They are increasingly true-to-life, favouring empathy with the clinical situation simulated each time and allowing the student to exercise not only technical abilities, but also critical thinking, the ability to work in a team and communication skills. We shall examine some moral questions linked to the increasingly frequent use of human-faceted robots to train nursing staff.

Keywords

Carebots Robots Bioethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Borenstein, J., Pearson, Y.: Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf. Technol. 12, 277–288 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robin, B., et al.: Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 4, 105–120 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vallor, S.: Carebots and caregivers: sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the 21st century. Philos. Technol. 24(3), 251–268 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coeckelbergh, M.: Health care, capabilities, and ai assistive technologies. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 13, 181–190 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouchard, S., et al.: Effectiveness of virtual reality exposure in the treatment of arachnophobia using 3D games. Technol. Health Care 14(1), 19–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia-Palacios, A., et al.: virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: a controlled study. Behav. Res. Ther. 40, 983–993 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, Z., et al.: Impact of using a robot patient for nursing skill training in patient transfer. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10(2), 355–366 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maidhof, W., Mazzola, N., Lacroix, N.: Student perceptions of using a human patient simulator for basic cardiac assessment. Currents Pharm. Teach. Learn. 4(1), 29–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moodley, T., Gopalan, D.: Airway skills training using a human patient simulator. Southern African J. Anaesth. Analg. 20(3), 147–151 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yinka, B.: Pediatric robot patient offers new level of realism for doctors in training. Medical Press, 10 September 2018. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-pediatric-robot-patient-realism-doctors.html
  11. 11.
    Tan, G.M., Ti, L.K., Suresh, S., Ho, B.S., Lee, T.L.: Teaching first-year medical students physiology: does the human patient simulator allow for more effective teaching? Singapore Med. J. 43(5), 238–242 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alinier, G., Hunt, B., Gordon, R., Harwood, C.: Effectiveness of intermediate-fidelity simulation training technology in undergraduate nursing education. J. Adv. Nurs. 54(3), 359–369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crofts, J.F., Bartlett, C., Ellis, D., Hunt, L.P., Fox, R., Draycott, T.J.: Training for shoulder dystocia: a trial of simulation using low-fidelity and high-fidelity mannequins. Obstet. Gynecol. 108(6), 1477–1485 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cioffi, J., Purcal, N., Arundell, F.: A pilot study to investigate the effect of a simulation strategy on the clinical decision making of midwifery students. J. Nurs. Edu. 44(3), 131–134 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    La Cerra, C., et al.: Effects of high-fidelity simulation based on life-threatening clinical condition Scenarios on learning outcomes of undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 9(2) (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persico, L.: A review: using simulation-based education to substitute traditional clinical rotations. JOJ Nurs. Health Care 9(3), 1–7 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.19080/JOJNHC.2018.09.555762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharkey, N., Sharkey, A.: The rights and wrongs of robot care. In: Lin, P., Abney, K., Bekey, G. (eds.) Robot Ethics: The Ethical ans Social Implications of Robotics, pp. 267–282. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, S., et al.: The uncanny valley: existence and explanations. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19(4), 393–407 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacDorman, K.F., Ishiguro, H.: The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social Science research. Interact. Stud.: Soc. Behav. Commun. Biol. Artif. Syst. 7, 297–337 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saygin, A.P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J., Frith, C.: The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 413–422 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., Ishiguro, H.: Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 19(1–2), 61–84 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mori, M.: The uncanny valley (1970). Energy 7(4), 33–35 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mc Dorman, K.: Androids as an experimental apparatus: why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In: CogSci2005 Workshop: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, pp. 108–118. Stresa (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carpenter, J.: Deus Sex Machina: loving robot sex workers and the allure of an insincere kiss. In: Danaher, J., McArthur, N. (eds.) Robot Sex. Social and Ethical Implications, pp. 261–287. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Educational SciencesUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.Bioethics CommitteeUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations