Autonomous surgical robotic systems and the liability dilemma

Area of Science:

• Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Law and Ethics
• Human-Computer Interaction

Background:

• Advancements in machine learning and robotics enable autonomous systems capable of decision-making and learning.
• The increasing autonomy of robotic systems shifts decision-making away from human supervision, creating legal challenges in assigning liability.
• Autonomous robotic systems are increasingly being developed for complex tasks, including surgery.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore public perception regarding liability when harm occurs due to robotic surgical systems.
• To investigate how the level of autonomy in robotic surgery influences public opinion on responsibility.
• To identify potential biases in assigning blame to human operators versus autonomous systems.

Main Methods:

• The iRobotSurgeon survey collected responses on five hypothetical scenarios involving patient harm from robotic surgery.
• Respondents indicated who they believed was most responsible: surgeon, robot manufacturer, hospital, or other parties.
• Data was analyzed from 2,191 surveys, representing 10,955 individual scenario responses across 78 countries.

Main Results:

• Public blame towards surgeons decreased as the robotic system's role in decision-making increased.
• Surgeons were still blamed even in scenarios with fully autonomous systems where humans had no decision-making input.
• No clear consensus emerged on who should be held liable for harm caused by fully autonomous surgical robotic systems.

Conclusions:

• The iRobotSurgeon Survey highlights a public dilemma in assigning blame for harm caused by autonomous surgical robots.
• Human surgeons may be unfairly held responsible, acting as "moral crumple zones" for autonomous system failures.
• Further legal and ethical frameworks are needed to address liability in the era of autonomous surgical technology.