Robot vs. Human Care

Groopman, Jerome. "Robots That Care: Advances in Technological Therapy" The New Yorker. The New Yorker, November 2009. Web. Jan. 2010
Read this article

In his article, "Robots That Care: Advances in Technological Therapy", Jerome Groopman describes the developments that are being made by computer scientist Maja Mataric and her team in the area of socially interactive robots. Groopman promotes the benefits of using robots in the treatment of Alzheimer's, stroke and autistic patients. His arguments in favor of the robots include the fact that, since Medicare is limited, robots are practical. Each is a one-time investment and can be used over and over again with different patients. The studies he sites also show that patients are more likely to be motivated to do a task when encouraged by a robot as opposed to a computer screen. Groopman describes studies that show other benefits including the fact that people don't mind being directed by a robot as much as they do a person, robots can be programmed to have a certain temperament depending on the patient, robots behavior can be customized to change with the patient's mood, and robots allow for greater privacy for the patient. Autistic children respond well to robots because robots can consistently be repetitive without getting frustrated. The children can also direct the robots and in most children this gives them the rare feeling of control.

It is important to consider Groopman's point of view about the use of socially interactive robots with patients because the impact of that use on the lives of Alzheimer, stroke and autistic patients could be life-changing for many people. A six month long study showed dramatic results in the cognitive and physical abilities of the patients. While most of the article is spent explaining the promising possibilities of this use of robots, Groopman does challenge the audience to think by pointing out the risks of the use of socially interactive robots with vulnerable patients. He quotes Shay Turkle, a professor at MIT, who expresses concerns about the drawbacks. She says that the patients actually start to relate to and care for the robots and can begin to expect that care to be returned, distorting the concept of meaningful relationships. Also, some patients say they like the robots because they "can't trust real people." What if the patient starts to relate to the robot as a "grandchild" or companion and then has it taken away? Groopman points out that Maja Mataric, the computer scientist directing the research, is aware of the dangers and is working with those in mind. She acknowledges that this kind of therapy is a "great social experiment with real risks." Do the benefits outweigh the risks?