Embodied and non-embodied applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are increasingly used in the healthcare domain. Their development, adoption and implementation promises safer, more personalised and more efficient care, oftentimes portrayed as the only available solution for individuals to live a ‘dignified’ life. However, these technologies also raise the concern they might cause the very same problem they intend to solve, for instance, by increasing loneliness, inciting unhealthy attachments, preventing users from accessing care and objectifying individuals. The multifaceted nature of AI technology also raises unprecedented regulatory issues that current legislation struggles to solve. Hard laws such as data protection legislation are often limited, scoping out various harmful impacts of technology. Technology ethics is also considered to be a good instrument to steer discussions but ethics lack enforceability. In this chapter, we explore the concept of ‘human dignity’, an axiomatic notion that acknowledges primacy of human beings and entitles them with human rights, as a lens through which the development of AI for healthcare should be analysed to reap the potential benefits of this technology without harming the individuals, or society at large, directly or indirectly.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare promises safer, more efficient, and more personalised care. Typical applications of such systems include personalised diagnosis, early disease detection, hospitalisation risk prediction, and drug discovery. These technologies process vast amounts of data, can learn from experience, and are capable of autonomously improving their performance. This also challenges the applicability of existing regulations that were not designed for progressive and adaptive aspects of AI. The automated processing of data that will evaluate, analyse, and predict health-related outcomes may also affect not only data protection regulations but also safety and other aspects of the individual’s environment. This chapter explores the challenges to existing legal frameworks brought about by the potential uptake and integration of several AI-based technologies in healthcare. Specifically, we look at AI-driven analytic tools for precision medicine, assistive technologies that adapt and facilitate rehabilitation and recovery, and various types of decision aids that may assist in critical processes such as diagnosis and screening. Although, in reality, the use of these technologies may not be limited to a single context, this approach allows us to focus the legal and ethical analysis on particular types of issues that may be based on function, usage, and implications. This analysis then examines both the practical and theoretical challenges and their possible impact on the use of AI in healthcare. The chapter concludes with a forward look at how these issues could be addressed proactively.

The insertion of robotic and artificial intelligent (AI) systems in therapeutic settings is accelerating. In this paper, we investigate the legal and ethical challenges of the growing inclusion of social robots in therapy. Typical examples of such systems are Kaspar, Hookie, Pleo, Tito, Robota,Nao, Leka or Keepon. Although recent studies support the adoption of robotic technologies for therapy and education, these technological developments interact socially with children, elderly or disabled, and may raise concerns that range from physical to cognitive safety, including data protection. Research in other fields also suggests that technology has a profound and alerting impact on us and our human nature. This article brings all these findings into the debate on whether the adoption of therapeutic AI and robot technologies are adequate, not only to raise awareness of the possible impacts of this technology but also to help steer the development and use of AI and robot technologies in therapeutic settings in the appropriate direction. Our contribution seeks to provide a thoughtful analysis of some issues concerning the use and development of social robots in therapy, in the hope that this can inform the policy debate and set the scene for further research.

Ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) in the development of wearable robots (WRs) are currently not explicitly addressed in most guidelines for WR developers. Previous work has identified ELSI related to WRs, e.g., impacts on body and identity, ableism, data protection, control and responsibilities, but translation of these concerns into actionable recommendations remains outstanding. This paper provides practical guidance for the implementation of ELSI in WR design, development and use. First, we identify the need for domain-specific recommendations against the context of current ELSI guidance. We then demonstrate the feasibility and usefulness of taking a domain-specific approach by successively transforming currently identified ELSI into an action-guiding flowchart for integration of ELSI specific to the different stages of WR development. This flowchart identifies specific questions to be considered by WR development teams and suggests actions to be taken in response. By tailoring ELSI guidance to WR developers, centring it on user needs, their relation to others and wider society, and being cognizant of existing legislation and values, we hope to help the community develop better WRs that are safer, have greater usability, and which impact positively on society.

Participation in everyday life and life satisfaction are greatly affected by disabilities. Motor impairments caused by neurological disorders, like spinal cord injury, stroke, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis, represent a significant burden for those affected and society. Wearable robotics and neuro-prostheses are two emerging technologies to recover mobility by generating lost movements or amplifying residual weak functions. The suppression of pain, elimination of spasticity, and movement restoration by spinal cord stimulation (i.e., neuromodulation) represent other indirect means for the mobilization of the impaired. This book section introduces the underlying basics of neuro-prostheses, spinal cord stimulation, and wearable robotics and highlights recent technological developments with application examples and open challenges. These include using various sensor technologies to recognize the user’s intention, generalized movement, muscular fatigue, and environmental disturbances. We dis- cuss feedback and learning control as essential solutions for user-individual support and assist-as-needed behavior and outline hybrid approaches in evolving multi-modal actuation principles to combine the advantages and compensate for the disadvantages of the individual support modalities. Examples of hybrid systems connecting wearable robots and electrical stimulation will illustrate the current state of the art and research before discussing applicability and transfer to daily practice, which does not come without drawbacks.

The COST Action on Wearable Robots (CA16116) brings together a multidisciplinary, cross-European consortium of experts in Wearable Robotics. Ethical, legal and social (ELS) issues in Wearable Robotics have so far been comparatively underexplored. The ELS Working Group of CA16116 aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of ELS issues in Wearable Robotics, identifying relevant values and ethical, philosophical, legal and social concerns related to the design, deployment and practical use of wearable robots. Here, we present a brief overview of the preliminary findings of a literature search and a series of three expert consultation workshops on ELS issues in Wearable Robotics conducted as part of the work of the Action between October 2017 and October 2018.

Pediatric access to exoskeletons lags far behind that of adults. In this article, we promote inclusiveness in exoskeleton robotics by identifying and addressing challenges and barriers to pediatric access to this potentially life-changing technology. We first present available exoskeleton solutions for upper and lower limbs and note the variability in the absence of these. Next, we query the possible reasons for this variability in access, explicitly focusing on children, who constitute a categorically vulnerable population, and also stand to benefit significantly from the use of this technology at this critical point in their physical and emotional growth. We propose the use of a life-based design approach as a way to address some of the design challenges and offer insights toward a resolution regarding market viability and implementation challenges. We conclude that the development of pediatric exoskeletons that allow for and ensure access to health-enhancing technology is a crucial aspect of the responsible provision of health care to all members of society. For children, the stakes are particularly high, given that this technology, when used at a critical phase of a child’s development, not only holds out the possibility of improving the quality of life but also can improve the long-term health prospects.