‘My Fitbit Thinks I Can Do Better!’ Do Health Promoting Wearable Technologies Support Personal Autonomy?

by | Jun 6, 2017 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Owens, John
  • Cribb, Alan

Abstract:

This paper critically examines the extent to which health promoting wearable technologies can provide people with greater autonomy over their health. These devices are frequently presented as a means of expanding the possibilities people have for making healthier decisions and living healthier lives. We accept that by collecting, monitoring, analysing and displaying biomedical data, and by helping to underpin motivation, wearable technologies can support autonomy over health. However, we argue that their contribution in this regard is limited and that—even with respect to their ‘autonomy enhancing’ potential—these devices may deliver costs as well as benefits. We proceed by rehearsing the distinction that can be drawn between procedural autonomy (which refers to processes of psychological deliberation) and substantive-relational autonomy (which refers to the opportunities people have for exercising potential actions). While the information provided by wearable technologies may support deliberation and decision-making, in isolation these technologies do little to provide substantive opportunities to act and achieve better health. As a consequence, wearable technologies risk generating burdens of anxiety and stigma for their users and reproducing existing health inequalities. We then reexamine the extent to which wearable technologies actually support autonomous deliberation. We argue that wearable technologies that subject their users to biomedical and consumerist epistemologies, norms and values also risk undermining processes of genuinely autonomous deliberation.

Document:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13347-017-0266-2

References:
  1. Abel, T., & Frohlich, K. (2010). Capitals and capabilities: linking structure and agency to reduce health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 236–244.Article  Google Scholar 
  2. Ashcroft, R. (2011). Personal financial incentives in health promotion: where do they fit in an ethic of autonomy? Health Expectations, 14, 191–200.Article  Google Scholar 
  3. Barry, C., Stevenson, F., Britten, N., Barber, N., & Brady, C. (2001). Giving voice to the lifeworld. More humane, more effective medical care? A qualitative study of doctor–patient communication in general practice. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 487–505.Article  Google Scholar 
  4. Ben-Ishai, E. (2012). Fostering autonomy: a theory of citizenship, the state and social service delivery. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Google Scholar 
  5. Benson, P. (2000). Feminist intuitions and the normative substance of autonomy. In C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self (pp. 124–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 
  6. Bernal, P. (2014). Internet privacy rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar 
  7. Brockling, U. (2016). The entrepreneurial self. London: Sage. Google Scholar 
  8. Cakici, B., & Sanches, P. (2014). Detecting the visible: the discursive construction of health threats in a syndromic surveillance system design. Societies, 4(3), 399–413.Article  Google Scholar 
  9. Constantini, L. (2014). Wearable tech expands human potential. Speech at TEDxMileHigh. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FESv2CgyJag
  10. Cribb, A. and Entwistle, V.A. (2011). Shared decision making: trade-offs between narrower and broader conceptions. Health Expectations, 14(2), 210–219.
  11. Dorling, D. (2013). Unequal health:t scandal of our times. Bristol: The Policy Press. Google Scholar 
  12. Elliot, C. (2003). Better than well: American medicine meets the American dream. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.. Google Scholar 
  13. Fitbit. (2017a). Official site for activity trackers and more. Available online: https://www.fitbit.com/uk
  14. Fitbit. (2017b). Press release: Fitbit reports $574M Q416 and $2.17B FY16 revenue, sells 6.5M devices in Q416 and 22.3M devices in FY16. Available online: https://investor.fitbit.com/press/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/Fitbit-Reports-574M-Q416-and-217B-FY16-Revenue-Sells-65M-devices-in-Q416-and-223M-devices-in-FY16/default.aspx
  15. Frankfurt, H. (1989). Freedom of the will and the concept of the person. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel: essays on individual autonomy (pp. 63–76). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 
  16. Habermas, J. (1970). On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00201747008601590. Google Scholar 
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). London: Heinemann. Google Scholar 
  18. Husain, I., & Spence, D. (2015). Can healthy people benefit from health apps? British Medical Journal. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1887.
  19. Illich, I. (1990). Limits to medicine—medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. London: Penguin. Google Scholar 
  20. Jakicic, J., Davis, K., Rogers, R., King, W., Marcus, M., Helsel, D., Rickman, A., Wahed, A., & Belle, S. (2016). Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: the IDEA randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association., 316(11), 1161–1171.Article  Google Scholar 
  21. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 
  22. Lupton, D. (2014). Apps as Artefacts: Towards a Critical Perspective on Mobile Health and Medical Apps. Societies. doi:10.3390/soc4040606.
  23. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar 
  24. Mackenzie, C. (2008). Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. Journal of Social Philosophy, 39, 512–533.Article  Google Scholar 
  25. Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (Eds.). (2000). Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 
  26. Marmot, M. (2010). Fair society, health lives: the Marmot review. Available online: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/
  27. Marmot, M. (2015). The health gap: the challenge of an unequal world. London: Bloomsbury Press. Google Scholar 
  28. Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2005). Social determinants of health (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 
  29. Martin, J. (2015). 13 wearable tech trends to watch in 2016. Available online: http://www.cio.com/article/3017995/wearable-technology/13-wearable-tech-trends-to-watch-in-2016.html.
  30. Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 303. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2.Article  Google Scholar 
  31. Mittelstadt, B., Fairweather, B., Shaw, M., & McBride, N. (2014). The ethical implications of personal health monitoring. International Journal of Technoethics, 5(2), 37–60.Article  Google Scholar 
  32. Morgan, H. (2016). ‘Pushed’ self-tracking using digital technologies for chronic health condition management: a critical interpretive synthesis. Digital Health, 2, 1–41.Article  Google Scholar 
  33. Nielsen. (2014). How consumers are using tech to stay healthy. Available online: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/ihealth-how-consumers-are-using-tech-to-stay-healthy.html
  34. Olson, P. (2014). Wearable tech is plugging into health insurance. Forbes. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/06/19/wearable-tech-health-insurance/#60e4788518bd
  35. Oshana, M. (2006). Personal autonomy in society. Aldershot: Ashgate. Google Scholar 
  36. Owens, J. (2012). Creating an impersonal NHS? personalization, choice and the erosion of intimacy. Health Expectations, doi:10.1111/hex.12000.
  37. Owens, J. and Cribb, A. (2013). Beyond choice and individualism: understanding autonomy for public health ethics. Public Health Ethics, 6(3), 262–271.
  38. Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2015). Income inequality and health: a causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316–326.Article  Google Scholar 
  39. Prah Ruger, J. (2010). Health capability: conceptualization and operationalization. American Journal of Public Health, 100(1), 41–49.Article  Google Scholar 
  40. Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692.Article  Google Scholar 
  41. Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: shaping of the private self (Second ed.). London: Free Associations Books. Google Scholar 
  42. Samsung. (2017). Get in shape with Samsung health and fitness. Available online: http://www.samsung.com/uk/discover/mobile/get-in-shape-with-samsung-health-and-fitness/
  43. Sedaris, D. (2014). Stepping out. The New Yorker. Available online at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/30/stepping-out-3
  44. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar 
  45. Till, C. (2014). Exercise as labour: quantified self and the transformation of exercise into labour. Societies. doi:10.3390/soc4030446.
  46. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar 
  47. Waller, B. (2005). Responsibility and health. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14, 177–188.Article  Google Scholar 
  48. Westlund, A. (2009). Rethinking relational autonomy. Hypatia, 24, 26–49.Article  Google Scholar 
  49. Yao, M. (2016). Top 5 Bots To Get You Fit. Available online: http://www.topbots.com/top-5-best-fitness-bots-fitness-apps/.