图 书 馆
医疗保健机器人和隐私权Healthcare Robots and the Right to Privacy |
|
| 课程网址: | http://videolectures.net/lawandethics2017_zapusek_healthcare_robo... |
| 主讲教师: | Tjaša Zapušek |
| 开课单位: | 哥本哈根大学 |
| 开课时间: | 2017-07-24 |
| 课程语种: | 英语 |
| 中文简介: |  本文揭示了作者的个人结论，这一结论源于以下事实：不断增长的机器人自治不是科幻小说，但它却代表了现代时代的臭名昭著的特征，需要一种全面而系统的法律手段。但是，欧洲议会最近发布的一项建议，从人权的角度来看，将机器人视为电子人似乎是不合适的，并且可能反映出严重侵犯了所有人的基本权利。本文关注自动机的负面后果以及它们对健康法和隐私权的影响。医疗保健道德的基本原则，对患者临床记录的保护，是医生与患者之间机密关系的基石。后者由于其重要性，不仅受到国家卫生立法的保护，还受到《欧洲人权公约》隐私权第8条的保护。在最新的医学成就中，有一个发现可以替代白大褂的人，该机器人可以完全自行完成手术，可以与自闭症患者进行单独会谈。如前所述，医学是一个需要在一定程度上保持机密信息的保密性，根据先前的法院裁决，在涉及精神病学记录的案件中，保密性甚至更为重要。机器人一方面参与医学治疗，另一方面又易于获得在治疗过程中获得的信息，这使《欧洲人权公约》第8条的规定的有效性产生了疑问。法律允许被保密的个人绕过《欧洲人权公约》第8条第2款的规定。上述段落指出，任何披露都必须符合法律规定并具有合法目的，此外，披露必须符合法律规定，并且必须符合民主社会的要求。机器人医生的在场引发了许多问题，例如，机器人医生会披露什么样的后果？这是否意味着机器人能够/将能够评估特定信息的重要性，并因此具有道德意识？或者，由于机械性，机器人会被用作简单的工具来获取一些已保存在光盘上的重要信息吗？尽管已经引入了现代机器人方法，并且已经被人们很好地接受了，但世界各国当前的立法并未在这个特定领域上给予太多关注。 |
| 课程简介: | The paper reveals author’s personal conclusions derived from the fact that an increasing autonomy of robots is not a science fiction, yet it presents a notorious feature of modern era that requires a comprehensive and systematic legal approach. However, a European Parliaments’ recently issued recommendation to consider robots as electronic persons seems inappropriate from human rights perspective and may reflect in serious violations of fundamental rights attached to all human beings. This article focuses on negative aftermaths of automaton and the impact they have on health law and the right to privacy. The fundamental principle of healthcare ethics, a protection of patient’s clinical records presents a cornerstone of doctor-patient confidential relationship. The latter is, due to its importance, protected not only by national health legislations, yet also by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to privacy. Among the latest medical achievements is the revelation of the alternative to a person in a white coat, a robot that can perform the surgery completely on its own, has individual sessions with autistic persons etc. As already mentioned, medicine is a profession that requires a certain level of maintenance of secrecy of confidential information and according to the previous Court’s decisions the secrecy is even more important in cases that involves psychiatric records. The robots’ involvement in medical treatments on one hand and easy access to the information they gain during the treatment on the other, bring into question the effectiveness of the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Law allows individuals, pledged to secrecy to bypass the provisions of Article 8(2) of the ECHR. The mentioned paragraph states, that any disclosure must be in accordance with the law and have legitimate purpose, moreover it has to be proportionate in accordance with the law and necessary pursuant to the democratic society. The presence of robot doctors rises many questions such as, what kind of consequences will have the disclosure by robot doctors? Does it mean that robots are/will be capable of evaluating the importance of particular information and therefore will it possess a moral sense? Or, will a robot, due to its mechanical nature be used as a simple tool in order to gain some important information that have been saved on the its disc? Current legislations in countries around the world do not put much attention on this particular area, even though the modern robotic approaches have already been introduced and also very well accepted. |
| 关 键 词: | 机器人自治; 电子人; 医疗伦理 |
| 课程来源: | 视频讲座网 |
| 数据采集: | 2020-11-21：cjy |
| 最后编审: | 2020-11-21：cjy |
| 阅读次数: | 140 |