Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic devices into healthcare has opened unprecedented opportunities for patients affected by severe neurological diseases and conditions. These technologies can restore lost functions, alleviate suffering, and, in some cases, sustain life itself by creating a “new physical integrity” in which the implanted device becomes inseparable from the patient’s body. However, the increasing reliance on such devices raises urgent concerns regarding their ethical, legal, and human rights implications.A central risk emerges from the potential discontinuity of device maintenance and software updates. Companies that design and produce these medical AI/robotic systems may fail economically, leading to the cessation of updates or the discontinuation of replacement parts. Equally concerning is the possibility that coverage for updates or maintenance may be withdrawn by welfare states or private insurers, either because patients lose eligibility within the healthcare system or because insurers exclude this service from their policies. In such scenarios, patients could face the deterioration of health already restored through implantation, or even risk death due to device malfunction. These outcomes challenge the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to life (Article 2) may be jeopardised if withdrawal of updates leads to fatal consequences. The right to physical integrity (Articles 3 and 8) assumes a new dimension. Once the body has adapted to and depends on an implanted device, its functionality becomes an integral part of the individual’s new identity. Furthermore, the right to health, closely tied to the principle of human dignity, is violated if external economic or policy choices undermine the state of well-being that has been acquired. Finally, this situation prompts an unresolved legal question: should patients whose devices are broken or no longer supported be recognised as disabled? Their impairment does not stem from innate conditions or accidents, but from the failure of technology essential to their functioning. This novel category of “device-induced disability” requires urgent attention from lawmakers and bioethicists.