This article has been shared with you to read free of charge. If you like what you read, please consider supporting us by subscribing to en-online or to the printed newspaper (which will also give you access to en-online).
The 70th anniversary of the NHS is being celebrated.
John Benton, Editor
Our National Health Service, launched by Aneurin Bevan on 5 July 1948, was a marvellous innovation and the country owes a great debt to its founders and those who work so hard within it.
Computers to replace doctors?
But the system is very much under strain. The government has promised a huge injection of cash, and the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (who attended the Westminster prayer breakfast addressed by Tim Keller – see report here) has announced plans to keep NHS staff up to scratch on the latest healthcare technology. Recently the company Babylon hit the headlines with claims that its robots are better at diagnosing illnesses than most GPs. Dr Ali Parsa, CEO of the company, claims: ‘Babylon’s latest artificial intelligence capabilities show it is possible for anyone, irrespective of their geography, wealth or circumstances, to have free access to health advice that is on par with top-rated practicing clinicians.’
It was with this in mind that I attended CARE’s conference at the British Library at the end of June. We were met by a robot in the foyer (and I couldn’t resist taking my first robot selfie!) The topic was ‘The Church, Robotics and AI’ (see full report on pg…) and though the conference was wide-ranging, I signed up to the seminar on healthcare and robotics. Very ably led by Matt James and Professor John Wyatt, the questions under consideration were challenging. We focused in particular on care for the elderly and those with dementia. Can robots help?
Robot carers
How are we as human beings to relate to machines which are ‘made in our image’ but which are not persons? The secular reduc-tionist view of human beings would say that we should relate to robots as one machine to another – one organic, the other inorganic.
No doubt many carers of the elderly would value a robot which could do the heavy lifting, getting folk out of bed, showering them and dressing them. But the companies who make robots seem to be focusing more on the relational use of robots – artificial intel-ligences which are programmed to respond to humans as if they were persons themselves (perhaps you have an Alexa?). What do we think of aged relatives, perhaps with dementia, being looked after by a robot and probably deceived into thinking that these cuddly mechanical friends are people and really care? Isn’t it all based on a lie? The friendly carer robot is often sold with advertising like this: ‘The relationships that Henry forms are the most important thing to him.’ But ‘Henry’ is a machine. So what is meant by ‘relationships’ and ‘important to him’?
Should laws be made which protect the most vulnerable from being fooled in this way? Should the manufacturers of such robots be legally required to program them so that regularly the robot reminds the patient that they are not human? Carers of the elderly are already among the lowest-paid workers and, in handing care over to (unpaid) robots, aren’t we inevitably denigrating the place of the elderly even further? On the other hand, someone said: ‘Well I would rather have my granny looked after by a robot which is programmed to be kind, than by a human being who might lose their temper with her!’ Point taken.
The central issue here is: ‘What makes us human?’ Only the Bible, God’s Word can give us the right answer to that question. So can Christians take the opportunity to lead the way in thinking through the minefield that technology is laying for society?
Welcome!
This article has been shared with you to read free of charge. If you like what you read, please consider supporting us by subscribing to en-online or to the printed newspaper (which will also give you access to en-online).
- The en team
The Editorial
The NHS & my robot selfie
The 70th anniversary of the NHS is being celebrated.
Our National Health Service, launched by Aneurin Bevan on 5 July 1948, was a marvellous innovation and the country owes a great debt to its founders and those who work so hard within it.
Computers to replace doctors?
But the system is very much under strain. The government has promised a huge injection of cash, and the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (who attended the Westminster prayer breakfast addressed by Tim Keller – see report here) has announced plans to keep NHS staff up to scratch on the latest healthcare technology. Recently the company Babylon hit the headlines with claims that its robots are better at diagnosing illnesses than most GPs. Dr Ali Parsa, CEO of the company, claims: ‘Babylon’s latest artificial intelligence capabilities show it is possible for anyone, irrespective of their geography, wealth or circumstances, to have free access to health advice that is on par with top-rated practicing clinicians.’
It was with this in mind that I attended CARE’s conference at the British Library at the end of June. We were met by a robot in the foyer (and I couldn’t resist taking my first robot selfie!) The topic was ‘The Church, Robotics and AI’ (see full report on pg…) and though the conference was wide-ranging, I signed up to the seminar on healthcare and robotics. Very ably led by Matt James and Professor John Wyatt, the questions under consideration were challenging. We focused in particular on care for the elderly and those with dementia. Can robots help?
Robot carers
How are we as human beings to relate to machines which are ‘made in our image’ but which are not persons? The secular reduc-tionist view of human beings would say that we should relate to robots as one machine to another – one organic, the other inorganic.
No doubt many carers of the elderly would value a robot which could do the heavy lifting, getting folk out of bed, showering them and dressing them. But the companies who make robots seem to be focusing more on the relational use of robots – artificial intel-ligences which are programmed to respond to humans as if they were persons themselves (perhaps you have an Alexa?). What do we think of aged relatives, perhaps with dementia, being looked after by a robot and probably deceived into thinking that these cuddly mechanical friends are people and really care? Isn’t it all based on a lie? The friendly carer robot is often sold with advertising like this: ‘The relationships that Henry forms are the most important thing to him.’ But ‘Henry’ is a machine. So what is meant by ‘relationships’ and ‘important to him’?
Should laws be made which protect the most vulnerable from being fooled in this way? Should the manufacturers of such robots be legally required to program them so that regularly the robot reminds the patient that they are not human? Carers of the elderly are already among the lowest-paid workers and, in handing care over to (unpaid) robots, aren’t we inevitably denigrating the place of the elderly even further? On the other hand, someone said: ‘Well I would rather have my granny looked after by a robot which is programmed to be kind, than by a human being who might lose their temper with her!’ Point taken.
The central issue here is: ‘What makes us human?’ Only the Bible, God’s Word can give us the right answer to that question. So can Christians take the opportunity to lead the way in thinking through the minefield that technology is laying for society?
Share this article: