Two Issues with the Empathy-Based Argument Against Robot-Physicians

Abstract

The development of social robots in medicine is an important area of development in robotics. It is possible that in the future, robots will become able to (partly) replace physicians. Several authors think robots ought not to replace physicians because they cannot be empathic, and empathy is necessary for good are. In this paper, I show that although widely accepted, this argument rests on two questionable assumptions. The first one is that because empathy is highly beneficial to care, it is necessary for good care. The second is that because empathy is necessary for good care performed by humans, it is also necessary for good care performed by robots. I discuss these two assumptions and show that the empathy-based argument against the use of social robots in medicine is not as convincing as we might have originally thought. I conclude that we need to explore further what good care is and the role that empathy plays in it.