Telecare, Surveillance, and the Welfare State

American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):36-44 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,227

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Using Foucault to Recast the Telecare Debate.Adrian Guta, Marilou Gagnon & Jean Daniel Jacob - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (9):57-59.
Nanotechnology and Privacy.Jeroen van den Hoven - 2006 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):215-228.
Privacy, the workplace and the internet.Seumas Miller & John Weckert - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 28 (3):255 - 265.
Facing the future: Seeking ethics for everyday surveillance. [REVIEW]David Lyon - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (3):171-180.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-08-11

Downloads
50 (#319,955)

6 months
6 (#530,265)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tom Sorell
University of Warwick

References found in this work

Reshaping what counts as care: Older people, work and new technologies.Celia Roberts & Maggie Mort - 2009 - Alter - European Journal of Disability Research / Revue Européenne de Recherche Sur le Handicap 3 (2):138-158.

Add more references