Photo by Cash Macanaya on Unsplash

”I think, therefore I am”. This infamous writing by René Descartes has served as the cornerstone of modern-day philosophy and proved of one’s existence through the ability to think. And when the ability to think becomes the defining quality of existence, it’s understandable that when machines and robots can think for themselves, one can expect a paradigm shift in many aspects of life. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have progressed significantly, so it’s unavoidable to answer the question: ”How can humans and robotics with AI coexist?” (assuming we ignore the notion that one may overtake the other). In this discussion, we’ll take a narrower look at the ethical considerations of this question in the field of medical robotics.

The rapid integration of AI and robotics into healthcare systems has been one of the most transformative developments in modern medicine. These technologies have enhanced diagnostic accuracy [17], personalized treatment strategies [3], improved surgical precision [12], and optimized healthcare workflows [8]. However, this technological revolution also presents a complex web of ethical challenges that demand careful consideration: privacy and data security, transparency, algorithmic bias, human-robot interaction, human dignity, and employment. The Stanford Encyclopedia article identifies privacy and surveillance as foundational concerns in AI ethics, and these issues take on heightened significance in medical contexts where sensitive patient information is at stake [9]. Medical AI systems generate and analyze vast quantities of personally identifiable health data, including genomic information, diagnostic images, electronic health records, and real-time physiological monitoring. The ”surveillance economy” described in the broader AI ethics discourse manifests in healthcare through continuous data collection from smart medical devices, wearable health monitors, and integrated hospital systems. Unlike general consumer data, medical information carries unique vulnerabilities, and its unauthorized disclosure can result in discrimination, stigmatization, and violations of fundamental patient rights [6]. Though current regulatory frameworks such as HIPAA in the United States and GDPR in Europe attempt to address these concerns, the digital healthcare landscape evolves faster than policy can adapt. Data privacy, from collected data and derived data, remains a central challenge to tackle. Privacy-preserving techniques, such as differential privacy, encryption, and anonymization, are potential technical solutions to this challenge, yet their implementation may bring about trade-offs regarding data accessibility and interoperability between systems [11].

Accountability is a major theme within healthcare, and transparency of decisions is a key to maintaining such a standard. As Muller mentioned in the article, the introduction of AI in healthcare brings about the threat of algocracy, or decision-making processes that constrain human participation and resist explanation [9]. In healthcare, this opacity conflicts with the principle of informed consent. So when an AI system with opaque reasoning is employed for clinical purposes, patient autonomy is likely compromised. The push for ”explainable AI” in medical contexts is therefore necessary. Healthcare providers must be able to understand AI-generated recommendations to provide appropriate professional judgment, identify potential errors, and communicate meaningfully with patients [11]. In practical terms, this is similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation on a right to explanation. However, it’s noteworthy to understand that for many AI systems, especially generative AI, the information generated might not exist in any literature, and the provider is left to decide whether the information generated is novel and accurate, a risky decision, or to stick to what they’ve been trained on and reject the AI information, a more conservative approach.

Closely related to the opacity of AI in healthcare is the issue of bias that can adversely affect clinical outcomes. Machine learning systems trained on historical medical data can perpetuate existing healthcare disparities, as biased datasets reflect the inequities embedded in past clinical practices. Indeed, in the case of Optum’s AI-driven healthcare algorithm, this system underestimated the health risks of Black patients [11]. This was the result when the model was trained on healthcare spending levels, and Black patients, who often receive lower levels of care, spend less on healthcare, resulting in this bias. Similarly, algorithms trained predominantly on data from specific populations may perform poorly when applied to patients of different races, ethnicities, or geographic regions. And if AI systems systematically provide inferior care to underrepresented communities, they risk amplifying rather than fixing healthcare inequalities. A solution for this issue is to intentionally incorporate these disparities into the algorithms so they are made aware in the decision-making processes. The challenge with such a solution lies with defining fairness mathematically and the previously mentioned opacity of machine learning systems. This has been proven possible through the cases presented by Rajkomar et al. [13]. Yet, these cases also show that this task demands lots of resources, from diverse datasets, ongoing monitoring, to rigorous testing, to reduce bias and ensure equity in AI-powered healthcare solutions.

For the current healthcare systems, robotics and AI operate with a human-in-the-loop assumption. For instance, the popular da Vinci surgical robot includes robotic arms that respond to the surgeon’s commands [1]. The robot only moves when the surgeon is controlling it, and at no point does the robot operate autonomously. However, autonomy in robotics manipulation is possible. A research by Tamhankar, a Ph.D. candidate at WPI, demonstrated that a robotic platform can consistently navigate the phantom left common carotid artery [16]. As technology advances and regulations adapt, the prospect of greater surgical autonomy raises more questions about appropriate levels of machine independence. The principle of autonomy in bioethics emphasizes patients’ rights to make informed decisions about their medical care, but this framework becomes complicated when treatment involves systems whose decision-making processes may be autonomous and opaque [2]. The integration of robotic systems, especially with AI-enhanced capabilities, in surgery also raises issues of accountability. When surgical outcomes involve contributions from human surgeons, robotic hardware, AI software, device manufacturers, and healthcare institutions, determining accountability for adverse events becomes legally and ethically complex [10]. The ”responsibility gap” discussed in the Stanford article poses particular challenges in medical contexts where clear liability is essential for patient protection and legal recourse [9]. A potential solution would be to shift responsibilities from the individual to manufacturers and operators of technological systems, as was recommended by the German Federal Ministry of Transport [5].

On the topic of human-robot interaction, the discussion around human dignity is associated with genuine human care. While care robots, such as Paro, Pepper, and Moxi, may enhance care efficiency and address caregiver shortages, they risk creating what critics describe as ”dehumanized care” if they substitute for rather than supplement human interaction [15]. The ethical challenge centers on authenticity: care robots that simulate emotional responsiveness or companionship engage in a form of deception, as they lack genuine feelings, intentions, or concern for patient well-being [2]. Does robotic care, then, still have therapeutic value? Do such experiences undermine human dignity by replacing authentic human relationships with technological simulations? Coeckelbergh suggests that if deception is countered by sufficiently large utility gains [4], it may be ethically justifiable, though this utilitarian school of thought is debatable. The answer, then, may depend on context, patient preferences, and the specific functions robots perform. A distinction can be made, for example, between robots that automate technical tasks (medication delivery, or vital sign monitoring) and those that purport to provide emotional or social support.

As historical precedent suggests, this technological wave of robotics and AI will result in both job losses and creation. The ethical question is, subsequently, how transition costs and benefits will be distributed across healthcare stakeholders, rather than whether technology will displace human workers. The adverse effect of job polarization due to AI has already been observed in heathcare. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society identifies medical coding and basic diagnostic tasks as particularly vulnerable to automation, while simultaneously noting that healthcare professionals must acquire new skills in data analysis and AI system management to remain competitive in the job market [14]. This pattern of elimination of mid-level routine tasks while increasing demand for high-skill technical positions exemplifies classic job polarization. The World Health Organization’s analysis raises additional concerns on this phenomenon that ”the introduction of AI systems might be used to justify the employment of less-skilled staff,” which ”could be problematic if the technology fails and staff are not able to recognize errors or carry out necessary tasks without computing assistance” [7]. Therefore, the benefits of healthcare AI must be weighed against potential harms to healthcare workers and communities that depend on medical employment. A balance needs to exist between productivity gains by healthcare employers and the employment of healthcare professionals.

The ethical landscape of medical robotics and AI encompasses privacy violations, algorithmic bias, opacity in decision-making, threats to patient autonomy, questions of accountability, concerns about authentic human care, and impacts on healthcare labor markets. These challenges are not merely theoretical but manifest in current healthcare AI deployments. Addressing these issues requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving technologists, healthcare professionals, ethicists, policymakers, and patient advocates. Technical solutions must combine with robust regulatory frameworks, professional standards, and ongoing ethical assessment [11]. As these technologies become more sophisticated and pervasive, developing adaptive ethical and legal frameworks that protect patients while enabling beneficial innovation remains imperative for realizing AI’s potential to improve healthcare outcomes without compromising ethical integrity.

References

1. Nov 2025.
2. Auxane Boch, Seamus Ryan, Alexander Kriebitz, Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, and Christoph Lutge. Beyond the metal flesh: Understanding the intersection between bio- and ai ethics for robotics in healthcare. Robotics (Basel), 12(4):110–, 2023.
3. Catherine Bolgar. How ai can help cancer patients receive personalized and precise treatment faster, Apr 2024.
4. Mark Coeckelbergh. Care robots and the future of ict-mediated elderly care: a response to doom scenarios. AI society, 31(4):455–462, 2016.
5. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, and Innovation. Ethics of connected and automated vehicles – Recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility. Publications Office, 2020.
6. Chukwuka Elendu, Dependable C. Amaechi, Tochi C. Elendu, Klein A. Jingwa, Osinachi K. Okoye, Minichimso John Okah, John A. Ladele, Abdirahman H. Farah, and Hameed A. Alimi. Ethical implications of ai and robotics in healthcare: A review. Medicine (Baltimore), 102(50):e36671–, 2023.
7. Indrajit Hazarika. Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the health workforce. International health, 12(4):241–245, 2020.
8. Jinseo Jeong, Sohyun Kim, Lian Pan, Daye Hwang, Dongseop Kim, Jeongwon Choi, Yeongkyo Kwon, Pyeongro Yi, Jisoo Jeong, and Seok-Ju Yoo. Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: A narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore), 104(6):e41470–, 2025.
9. Vincent C. Muller. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2025 edition, 2025.
10. Satvik N Pai, Madhan Jeyaraman, Naveen Jeyaraman, Arulkumar Nallakumarasamy, and Sankalp Yadav. In the hands of a robot, from the operating room to the courtroom: The medicolegal considerations of robotic surgery. Cureus (Palo Alto, CA), 15(8):e43634–, 2023.
11. Tuan Pham. Ethical and legal considerations in healthcare ai: innovation and policy for safe and fair use. Royal Society open science, 12(5):241873–24, 2025.
12. Patrick Probst. A review of the role of robotics in surgery: To davinci and beyond. Missouri medicine, 120(5):389–396, 2023.
13. Alvin Rajkomar, Michaela Hardt, Michael D. Howell, Greg Corrado, and Marshall H. Chin. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(12):866–872, Dec 2018.
14. Sandeep Reddy. The impact of ai on the healthcare workforce: Balancing opportunities and challenges — himss, Apr 2024.
15. A Sharkey and N Sharkey. Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE robotics automation magazine, 18(1):32–38, 2011.
16. Aabha Tamhankar and Giovanni Pittiglio. Towards autonomous navigation of neuroendovascular tools for timely stroke treatment via contact-aware path planning, 2025.
17. Hyunsuk Yoo, Ki Hwan Kim, Ramandeep Singh, Subba R. Digumarthy, and Mannudeep K. Kalra. Validation of a deep learning algorithm for the detection of malignant pulmonary nodules in chest radiographs. JAMA Network Open, 3(9):e2017135–e2017135, 09 2020.