An Ideal Regulatory Framework for Robotic Surgery Utilization In Indonesia
This academic paper examines the legal and regulatory framework surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in robotic surgery in Indonesia. It highlights existing legal gaps where AI is treated merely as a tool and only medical professionals bear liability for malpractice. The authors propose establishing explicit legislation regarding AI legal liability and creating a specialized committee of legal, medical, and government experts to examine robotic surgery procedures.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Policymakers, legal scholars, and healthcare regulators should read this to understand the regulatory challenges and legal gaps of implementing robotic surgery in Indonesia.
What the document contains
The paper discusses the application of AI in robotic surgery, associated legal risks and liability issues, and the current legal vacuum in Indonesian law regarding artificial intelligence and healthcare regulations.
The text lacks detailed statutory enforcement mechanisms, specific technical standards for AI development, and comprehensive definitions for autonomous medical systems beyond general legal liability concepts.
- The integration of artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in clinical practice raises significant legal concerns regarding liability and accountability.
- Indonesia currently lacks specific legislation recognizing artificial intelligence as a legal subject or governing AI use in healthcare.
- Without clear AI regulations, only medical professionals face legal liability for malpractice resulting from AI system errors.
- The establishment of a specialized committee comprising legal specialists, medical professionals, and government representatives is proposed to examine robotic surgery execution errors.
· I. INTRODUCTION · II. METHODS · III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · IV. CONCLUSION · V. REFERENCES
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
This includes Realizers, planners determine authenticity as a characteristic and also include other obligations throughout the artificial intelligence's use.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
physicians lacking the necessary skills to perform robotic surgery are a few examples of these risks.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
1/5Protection of personal data and private life
This system's artificial intelligence (AI) can explore and analyze and also use and observe personal data.
I. INTRODUCTION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Common device malfunctions include burns or damage to patient -specific instruments, programming errors, and problems with video and imaging.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
A relevant agency must be created that includes a group of highly accomplished experts to research the wrongs of using robotic surgery.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Data on injuries and fatalities indicate that robotic surgery has been associated with more than 144 fatalities, 1,391 injuries, and 8,061 malfunctions of devices.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23