English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Over the last decade, surgical robots have risen in prominence and usage. Forsurgical robots, connectivity is necessary to accept software updates, acceptinstructions, and transfer sensory data, but it also exposes the robot tocyberattacks, which can damage the patient or the surgeon. These injuries arenormally caused by safety failures, as seen in accidents with industrialrobots, but cyberattacks are caused by security failures instead. We create ataxonomy for both types of failures in this paper specifically for surgicalrobots. These robots are increasingly sold and used in the European Union (EU);we therefore consider how surgical robots are viewed and treated by EU law.Specifically, which rights regulators and manufacturers have, and which legalremedies and actions a patient or manufacturer would have in a single nationallegal system in the union, if injuries were to occur from a security failurecaused by an adversary that cannot be unambiguously identified. We find thatthe selected national legal system can adequately deal with attacks on surgicalrobots, because it can on one hand efficiently compensate the patient. This isbecause of its flexibility; secondly, a remarkable absence of distinctionbetween safety vs security causes of failure and focusing instead on thedetrimental effects, thus benefiting the patient; and third, liability can beremoved from the manufacturer by withdrawing its status as party if the patientchooses a separate public law measure to recover damages. Furthermore, we findthat current EU law does consider both security and safety aspects of surgicalrobots, without it mentioning it through literal wording, but it also addssubstantial liabilities and responsibilities to the manufacturers of surgicalrobots, gives the patient special rights and confers immense powers on theregulators.

Dissecting liabilities in adversarial surgical robot failures: A national (Danish) and European law perspective