Telecare, Surveillance, and the Welfare State
American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):36-44 (2012)
| Abstract | In Europe, telecare is the use of remote monitoring technology to enable vulnerable people to live independently in their own homes. The technology includes electronic tags and sensors that transmit information about the user's location and patterns of behavior in the user's home to an external hub, where it can trigger an intervention in an emergency. Telecare users in the United Kingdom sometimes report their unease about being monitored by a ?Big Brother,? and the same kind of electronic tags that alert telecare hubs to the movements of someone with dementia who is ?wandering? are worn by terrorist suspects who have been placed under house arrest. For these and other reasons, such as ordinary privacy concerns, telecare is sometimes regarded as an objectionable extension of a ?surveillance state.? In this article, we defend the use of telecare against the charge that it is Orwellian. In the United States, the conception of telecare primarily as telemedicine, and the fact that it is not typically a government responsibility, make a supposed connection with a surveillance state even more doubtful than in Europe. The main objection, we argue, to telecare is not its intrusiveness, but the danger of its deepening the isolation of those who use it. There are ways of organizing telecare so that the independence and privacy of users are enhanced, but personal isolation may be harder to address. As telecare is a means of reducing the cost of publicly provided social and health care, and the need to reduce public spending is growing, the correlative problem of isolation must be addressed alongside the goal of promoting independence | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAnders Nordgren (forthcoming). Remote Monitoring or Close Encounters? Ethical Considerations in Priority Setting Regarding Telecare. Health Care Analysis.
J. Perry, S. Beyer & S. Holm (2009). Assistive Technology, Telecare and People with Intellectual Disabilities: Ethical Considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):81-86.
M. Schermer (2009). Telecare and Self-Management: Opportunity to Change the Paradigm? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (11):688-691.
Caroline J. Huang & Tanya S. Goldhaber (2012). Malicious Meddling or Transparent Tracking? Telecare as a Logical Extension of Modern Communications Technology. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):45-47.
Adrian Guta, Marilou Gagnon & Jean Daniel Jacob (2012). Using Foucault to Recast the Telecare Debate. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):57-59.
Luca Chiapperino, Marco Annoni, Paolo Maugeri & Giuseppe Schiavone (2012). What Autonomy for Telecare? AnExternalistApproach. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):55-57.
Jeroen Van Den Hoven & Pieter E. Vermaas (2007). Nano-Technology and Privacy: On Continuous Surveillance Outside the Panopticon. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):283 – 297.
Seda Gürses (2010). PETs and Their Users: A Critical Review of the Potentials and Limitations of the Privacy as Confidentiality Paradigm. Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):539-563.
Jason W. Patton (2000). Protecting Privacy in Public? Surveillance Technologies and the Value of Public Places. Ethics and Information Technology 2 (3):181-187.
N. Ben Fairweather (1999). Surveillance in Employment: The Case of Teleworking. Journal of Business Ethics 22 (1):39 - 49.
Amy L. Fairchild, Ronald Bayer & James Colgrove (2008). Privacy, Democracy and the Politics of Disease Surveillance. Public Health Ethics 1 (1):30-38.
Jeroen van Den Hoven (2006). Nanotechnology and Privacy. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):215-228.
Seumas Miller & John Weckert (2000). Privacy, the Workplace and the Internet. Journal of Business Ethics 28 (3):255 - 265.
David Lyon (2001). Facing the Future: Seeking Ethics for Everyday Surveillance. Ethics and Information Technology 3 (3):171-180.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-08-11Total downloads2 ( #232,628 of 549,591 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,591 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
