Robotics and Liability
Thesis – The Da Vinci surgical robot
manufacturer is allegedly responsible for the harm caused to a patient by a
doctor’s lack of training. By finding against Da Vinci we create a misplaced
level of liability and unattainable responsibility by product manufacturers.
Current
robots are mostly of a variety that is directly controlled by a human, as
opposed to the more futuristic versions of artificial intelligence shown in
science fiction. This direction by humans implies a level of responsibility for
the controller, not just the manufacturer. The manufacturer therefore would be
responsible for the robot’s operations as if it were a tool in these
circumstances.
An example
of this responsibility can be demonstrated by thinking of an automobile. The
automobile is not driving itself [yet]; therefore the automobile manufacturer
is not responsible for decisions made by the driver. The manufacturer is
responsible for the operation of the vehicle and construction of its parts.
Brakes are expected to stop a car with regular maintenance. Steering wheels are
expected to turn the vehicle. If these items are in working order, and a car
turns suddenly into opposing traffic, the fault of the accident would normally
be found with the driver.
This is the
argument being made in Kitsap County by the makers of the Da Vinci surgical
robot, “The defendant in the suit, da Vinci
manufacturer Intuitive Surgical, says the robot worked as designed and the
company isn’t responsible for surgical mistakes.”[1] The case before the courts is not one
of debate about the damage done to the patient. It seems very clear that the
injuries of Fred Taylor were clearer not normal complications of a prostate
surgery, causing undue harm and ultimately speeding his death due to
complications. Da Vinci is arguing that they are not liable for the misuse of
their tool, the surgical robot, and that sole liability should be at the hands
of the inexperienced doctor who used it.
Complications
in this case come with the assertions of the patients that Da Vinci is
responsible for proper training and enforcement of a certain skill level with
their robotics, which the expectation of the manufacturer extends to training
and practices of the doctors using these machines. While raising certain
questions, my belief is that this liability is not yet on Da Vinci. Due to the
fact that the product is under direct operation of a human, the choices in the
actions of the machine are at the fault of the human. This belief is based on
the fact that an auto manufacturer is not liable for the actions of an
unlicensed driver; a gun manufacturer is not responsible for a home shooting. There
are additional agencies in place to enforce the licensing and use of these
machines, and the use of a surgical robot would come under the same liability
as that of other medical tools, not the manufacturer.
In support
of this argument also, Da Vinci has given guidelines for suggested processes to
learn and best use their equipment; which in this case were not followed,
violating the intended use of the machine. As a third supporting fact for the
defense of Da Vinci, it does not seem that their instrument directly
malfunctioned, which would be their responsibility. The arms, joints, and
cameras all worked.
The lawsuit alleges that Da Vinci
dumbed down training in order to sell more machines. I believe this does not
imply negligence on the part of Da Vinci, although it may point to highly
questionable morals and business practices. This is not to say there is not
negligence in the lack of training on these robotic machines. Much as the
responsibility for a driver’s license falls on the department of motor
vehicles, the responsibility for training lies with medical authorities. By
holding Da Vinci liable for the doctor’s damage in this case, an unobtainable
precedent would be set requiring companies to create a self-regulatory division
in charge of enforcement of skills in addition to manufacturing products.
[1]
“Failed robotic surgery focus of Kitsap Trial”, The Seattle Times, Carol M
Ostrom, May 3rd, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment