In a number of fields, such as mental health services, substance addiction, and aiding individuals with disabilities, the potential for technological innovation to have a revolutionary impact on the delivery of health and social care has been recognised (Mintz et al, 2012; Dunst et al, 2013). An increasing amount of worry about the moral, privacy, and social justice repercussions of these technical advancements has been juxtaposed with this acknowledgement (Social Care Institute for Excellence [SCIE], 2014).
This essay examines the advantages and disadvantages of the rising usage of technology in certain contexts. A few of the major issues will be addressed first, after which there will be an effort to reframe them and a consideration of the potential for technology to fundamentally alter many facets of the provision of health and social care. Then, a specific and highly contentious issue—surveillance—will be thoroughly examined in order to address these difficulties. An examination of the prevalent discourses around surveillance technology in health and social care will be part of this. It will be demonstrated that, despite the unquestionable difficulties in this domain, technology is merely a tool that can be applied either positively or negatively.
Staff aptitude, education, and motivation are some of the most fundamental issues that technological innovation in health and social care must address (Liddell et al, 2008; Gillingham, 2015). Face-to-face contacts have historically been the primary method of practise in the fields of health and social care (Berzine et al, 2015). Hence, the status quo is likely to fight any loss of this interpersonal focus, and those professionals who are concerned that their talents may no longer be applicable to these changing contexts should be concerned (Liddell et al, 2008). So, it is not unexpected that the health and social care sectors have been proven to adopt new technical advancements far more slowly than private sector organisations (Zorn et al, 2011).
A number of ethical difficulties about the use of technology in various contexts exist in addition to these practical ones. The most pressing of them is a worry that technology is exacerbating some of the major problems that experts in health and social care often deal with. For instance, studies have demonstrated that excessive technology use is causing a rise in depression and a worsening of depressed symptoms (Tong Mok et al, 2014). This is especially troubling for kids because the younger someone starts using technology on a regular basis, the more probable it is that they may have mental health issues as a result of that use (Augner and Hacker, 2012).
Moreover, the use of technology is associated with a rise in childhood obesity, a serious public health issue in modern society (Rosen et al, 2013). Online grooming practises, internet addiction, and cyberbullying are three more issues that are frequently brought up (Office of Communications, 2015; King et al., 2012). (Palmer, 2015).
To the detriment of the advantages that new technologies might offer service users and patients, it is crucial that these worries do not give rise to an illogical propensity towards technological scepticism. Welsh et al. (2003) made a point of pointing out that new technologies are morally neutral in and of themselves; it is the applications to which they are put that generate ethical questions.
According to this viewpoint, Greenfield (2014) emphasises that it is naive to think of any technology as inherently good or bad and that the influence of every technical advance relies on how it is used. For instance, while it was mentioned earlier that younger people face particular risks from technology, it is equally important to acknowledge that younger people can now be reached through technology, especially young men, who have historically been difficult for health and social care organisations to reach (Ellis et al, 2012). It has also been demonstrated that several established interpersonal interventions, such person-centered counselling, may be delivered successfully using new technological platforms (Vossler, 2010). To know more about this students can take assistance from university assignment help experts online.
It is helpful to take a close look at one specific topic, namely surveillance, in order to give this discussion more weight. Privacy problems are becoming more and more of a concern for health and social care services, and the competing demands in these contexts present a significant barrier in handling these concerns (Zwijsen et al, 2011; Mortenson et al, 2015). On the one hand, the legal and policy framework that offers a more comprehensive setting for the delivery of health and social care places a strong emphasis on the value of information sharing with other professions. For instance, section 6 of the Care Act 2014 mandates cooperation in the information-sharing process between local governments, the NHS, and other organisations participating in the delivery of health and social care services.
The Children Act of 2004 and the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 both set comparable obligations on agencies to cooperate in this way. The fundamental right to a private life and family, as stated in section 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1998, coexists with these information sharing regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation 2016, which was recently implemented and went into effect in the UK in May 2018, has increased worries about information sharing. As a result, both governmental and non-governmental organisations now have enormous duties for securely storing, handling, and disseminating personal data.
It is undeniably true that modern society is more obsessed than ever with monitoring, and this worry has spread to settings for health and social care (Mortenson et al, 2015). Welsh et al. (2003) asserted that concerns in these health and social care settings are gradually shifting from concerns about being under surveillance to concerns about what might happen if people are not under surveillance. These problems have only gotten worse as more technology has become available to conduct constant surveillance, according to Welsh et al (Perry et al, 2010). Telecare sensors, GPS devices, cameras, and smart health recording devices are examples of the technical advancements that enable more reliable surveillance in the fields of health and social care (Mortenson et al, 2015).
How widely used surveillance technology has grown in health and social care is evidenced by the fact that both the Care Quality Commission (CQC, 2015) and the SCIE (2014) have offered explicit guidelines on using it in these settings.
It is crucial to understand that people using health and social care services can greatly benefit from surveillance technologies. For instance, it has been discovered that elderly persons who want to stay in their own homes appreciate the use of surveillance technologies to make this possible and avoid moving too soon into a care facility (Perry et al, 2010; Andruszkiewicz and Fike, 2015).
According to online assignment help experts,The ethical implications of these new monitoring technologies, however, are only briefly considered along with these advantages (Perry et al, 2010; Gillingham, 2015). This is important since studies have shown that managers, practitioners, and patients frequently have wildly different perceptions on the risks associated with these new surveillance technology (Essen and Conrick, 2008; Mortenson et al, 2015).
Examining the discourse that is utilised in this field is useful for doing a thorough analysis of these difficulties. Discourse is referred to be "historically changing means to specify knowledge and truth" by Foucault (1980: 93).
There are certain major discourses surrounding surveillance that characterise the discussion in this domain, particularly the technical discourse, or what the technological systems actually do, and the discourse on rights, or the acceptability of the technological systems to these situations (SCIE, 2014). Regarding the discussion of rights, a movement has started based on the idea that health and social care organisations shouldn't keep or use information on their clients' services without their clients' explicit agreement and active participation (Cantor, 2006: 49). Alongside this, it is acknowledged that permission and capacity as defined by the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 are closely tied to the principles of privacy and surveillance (SCIE, 2014).
It is critical to keep in mind that the 'rights' discourse should coexist with the technical discourse since, while the technical discourse is important for innovation and growth, it does not allow for these kinds of talks (SCIE, 2014). Yet, technology alone does not ensure improved social justice or service provision, which should be the ultimate goal of individuals and organisations in this field. Technology innovation in health and social care has the potential to alter service provision (Goldkind and Wolf, 2015).
This essay has demonstrated that there are obvious barriers to technology innovation in health and social care contexts as well as potential for it, and that the practitioners, managers, and policymakers in this field will determine the effects of these advances. This essay has discussed some of the frequently mentioned difficulties that technology provides in this field and has taken into account the advantages that go along with these difficulties. The idea of monitoring was then carefully studied, focusing on how speech affects how technology is viewed in certain contexts.
There is the possibility for technological innovation to be motivated not by what is best for service users and patients but instead by a desire to save money and enhance perceived efficiency. This discourse-centered conversation should remain key to technology engagement in these settings (Norrie et al, 2014). The key to addressing these problems and ensuring that the huge prospects offered by these new technology advancements are realised is to keep the language of rights at the centre of all conversations in this area. To know more students can take help from online assignment help Hamilton experts.
