Shortcomings of Compassion

Dispatches from the Culture Wars reports on a lesbian couple who were denied visitation rights and a chance to provide medical information when one woman fell ill and was taken to a hospital. The woman died shortly afterward, and the state of Florida refused to provide a copy of the death certificate so the surviving partner and their children could obtain survivor's benefits.

Rather than point to the legal failures to provide recourse for these and other people in such tragic circumstances, I'd like to focus on the shortcomings of the hospital. While it is certainly important to respect patient privacy, does the Hippocratic Oath and the physician's humanity not demand that all reasonable measures be taken to obtain information that could save a patient's life? There was no conflict here, other than possibly with an administrative policy barring non-family from seeing a patient or providing information for the protection of the patient, but when weighed against the chance of saving a patient's life and the opportunity to act with a certain level of compassion, I don't see how any physician could look him or herself in the mirror after such a failure as this.

As I am not a part of the medical community, I am unfamiliar with the professional perspective on this. It is my hope, however, that if there is not yet consensus by the medical community on how to humanely address cases like these in a consistent fashion (because they are not going away and will become more prevalent) that some can be reached to demonstrate that the medical community can and will rise to a higher standard of humanity than what is dictated by the law.

Update: Alicia Ouellette has provided a link with information on the lawsuit being filed on the patient's behalf by Lamda Legal.

The Perfect Spouse

We had an earlier post about Sex and Marriage with Robots, the AJOB blog has followed up on the theme and Hollywood dreamed this all up in The Stepford Wives long before scholars were writing about the possibility. But for the first time, that I can think of, that someone (namely Wired's Regina Lynn) has named a top 10 reasons list to marry a robot -- here are just a few of the reasons she gave:

- Artificial intelligence is still intelligence.

- Robots have off switches.

- A robot is forever -- at least until the warranty runs out.

I could think of few other reasons -- like, no complaints about who does the housework -- after all, doesn't the perfect robot spouse dust, vacuum, and do laundry while you're off at work all day, and then greets you at home with a healthy, gourmet dinner? Or balances your checking account without criticizing your spending habits? Or is never too tired at night to tango? The list could be quite lengthy...

Good for a chuckle -- you can access the rest of Regina's article here.

Sex and Marriage with Robots?

One of my students sent me a link to this article on a grad student doing a thesis on "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners" -- David Levy, a grad student in artificial intelligence at University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, speculates that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them. He predicts that Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots, circa 2050.

Several things come to mind:

First, AI has to attain the status of legal personhood before any such thing as marriage (or any other contractual relationship for that matter) is recognized.

Secondly, as Glenn McGee wrote in an article in the Scientist and on blog.bioethics.net earlier: "As humans build robots that learn what their owners desire, the dilemma of the robots of Blade Runner emerges: What do humans owe “purpose-built” machines who begin to reach awareness, or to so resemble awareness that it becomes a selling point? Should laws be written to protect robots from us, by requiring robot makers to stop short of, say, robosexual devices that learn to be incredibly intimate with humans and yet are owed nothing? If so, do we create such laws in the interest of robots, or to preserve our own human dignity by choosing not to create a new kind of slave, whether or not that slave is fully aware?"

Thirdly, would these robots be sentient -- capable of experience pleasure and pain? Because the act of creating potentially sentient beings carries with it the corresponding responsibility for their actions and for the impact on the human community, the biosphere of the earth and the universe as a whole.

Fourthly, will it ever be possible to 'upload' your thoughts and memories to create a robot version of you? Some organizations are striving to do this -- and if they succeed, it will certainly have an impact on the previous questions.

[Added Oct 24, 2007, 9:14am EST - Editor's note: Our blogger extraordinaire, Kelly Hills, had some really interesting things to say about this, as we covered in a previous post.]