No, we do not want to replace humans with technology

Four doctors argue in SvD Debatt that the Minister of Health has a clueless view of e-health, and that this clueless technological optimism fueled by special interests is a threat to both public health and cost-effective healthcare. In support of this, which they argue is not an expression of hostility to technological development, they use the argument "there is an over-reliance on medical tests and apps". We do not share this view.

By reducing the broad areas of e-health, welfare technology and digitization of health and social care to the perceived shortcomings of a number of individual technical solutions, they rather show the need for an even clearer political recognition of the transformative power of digitization as the central tool for addressing the challenges facing our welfare society.

Our report 'One or zero? A report on the digitalization of Sweden", it is clear that the great benefits of digitalization - for Sweden and the world at large - are still waiting to be realized. What is now preventing us from realizing the potential of digitalization to secure our future prosperity despite an aging population and diminishing resources is that we still talk too much about the pros and cons of one app or service and another. About technology versus human beings, as if we were not the ones who control how technology should work and be used in the best way.

The starting point of welfare technology is not to replace people, but to free up human resources to do what they are best at and feel most comfortable doing. To complement humans. And to do so with the individual and their unique needs at the center - which today's healthcare is not at all optimized for.

Many of the companies we represent, some of which are mentioned in the article, are today working in very close collaboration with health and social care providers, users and politicians to solve the practical challenges Sweden faces. There are many examples of success, to the benefit of both society and individuals. This is particularly true in the field of elderly care, where the implementation of welfare technology has come a long way in many places, leading to increased security, independence and self-determination for users and better working conditions for care staff.

This, using the technologies that exist today and those that we will develop and refine tomorrow, to create better conditions for maintaining or, better still, further increasing everyone's standard of living is what we want to do. It is what we must do. That is why we are very happy that we have Swedish politicians who want the same, and realize that our 'special interests' are not in conflict with each other. That, on the contrary, they, and cooperation between us, are what our future prosperity depends on.

The four debaters do not want to stop the development of technology, they say, but the substance of the statement is difficult to read as anything other than that and no alternative solutions are presented.

Neither the present nor the future is something we suffer, but something we create - best in constructive collaboration. Let us now continue the important conversation about digitization from this starting point.