Big brother is watching you--the ethical implications of electronic surveillance measures in the elderly with dementia and in adults with learning difficulties

Electronic surveillance has insidiously seeped into the fabric of society with little public debate about its moral implications. Perceived by some as a sinister Orwellian tool of repression and social control, the new technologies offer comfort and security to others; a benevolent parental watchful eye. Nervousness at being watched has been replaced increasingly by nervousness if we're not. These technologies are now becoming widely available to health care professionals who have had little opportunity to consider their ethical and moral ramifications. Electronic tagging and tracking devices may be seen as away of creating a more secure environment for vulnerable individuals such as the elderly with dementia or people with learning disabilities. However, the proponents of surveillance devices have met with considerable resistance and opposition,from those who perceive it as contrary to human dignity and freedom, with its connotations of criminal surveillance. In addition, they cite increased opportunity for abuse through, for example, the withdrawal of staff and financial resources from the care of people with complex needs. Implementing these technologies, therefore, has ethical implications for human rights and civil liberties. Optional alternatives to long-term and/or restrictive care, in the context of the practical difficulties involved in caring for those who represent a risk to themselves from wandering, demands rigorous exploration of pragmatic questions of morality, with reference to risk versus benefit strategies. Like reproductive cloning techniques, the mere existence of surveillance technologies is morally neutral. Rather it is the use (in this instance that of health and social care settings) to which it is put which has the potential for good or bad.