Intimacy and the Spatialization of Care: the case of Teleconsultation Booths
(2025) Congrès biannuel de la Society for Philosophy of Technology — Location: Eindhoven (25.June.2025)
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Telemedicine and telehealth are positioned as intimate technologies in the sense that they introduce a geographical renewal of care. Indeed, information and communication technologies enable the provision of remote health services, creating a new spatialization of healthcare. This involves new relationships of proximity and, consequently, a potential destabilization of intimacy. The spatial units associated with healthcare are thus reconfigured: the relationship to oneself and one’s body, the medical relationship, care spaces, and the healthcare system as a whole, now ordered according to a new “geography of responsibilities” (Akrich, 2010). Despite the significant respatializations facilitated by technology—which should be ethically framed to maximize conditions for intimacy—we contend that a prevailing assumption endures: the notion of the “despatialization of care” (Mitchell, 1995). This concept, promoted within the health innovation literature, supports the idea of “placeless care” (Oldenhof et al, 2016; Ivanova, 2020), which is conceived as the capacity to overcome spatial limitations. The arguments presented in this proposal comprise two main components: first, we assert that spatiality is a crucial and enduring component of care; second, we contend that where care takes place is fundamental to the ethical success of technologies. To demonstrate this, we will examine teleconsultation booths—spaces equipped with connected tools (e.g., thermometer, blood pressure monitor, stethoscope, and scales) that enable medical consultations between patients and healthcare professionals —. These booths materially embody the promise (Joly, 2015) of placeless care: the geographical distance between the patient and healthcare provider is effectively eliminated, implying that spatial considerations in care are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, we argue that the spatialization of care remains a critical issue, sparking significant debate. For instance, is it ethically acceptable to place such booths in supermarkets? Could this practice contravene the public health code, which stipulates that “medicine must not be practiced as a trade” (Ordre des Médecins, 2021)? What locations and environmental conditions are necessary to ensure a high-quality teleconsultation? In summary, the main question guiding our study is to define, through the lens of teleconsultation, what constitutes an ethical space for remote care. While the French National Authority for Health, for example, has provided recommendations regarding lighting, calmness, and booth isolation (HAS, 2024), their lack of legal enforceability allows for the emergence of heterogeneous and potentially problematic practices. In conclusion, it is essential to address the ethical regulation of the spatialization of remote care to ensure that these emerging medical practices adhere to a framework that upholds patient dignity, intimacy, and the core principles of medical ethics.
- Affiliations
Citations
Degreef, N., & Loute, A. (2025, June). Intimacy and the Spatialization of Care: the case of Teleconsultation Booths. Congrès biannuel de la Society for Philosophy of Technology, Eindhoven. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/249003