Robot Rights: pointless OR irrelevant?

Once more: "roboticists" (that's the best name they could come up with?) want to discuss "robot rights" and "robo-healthcare." And, possibly, how robots can be made more integral to the public consciousness, like dinosaurs after "Jurassic Park," so that "roboticists" can get more money to think about fake sci-fi crises that will never happen.

Fortunately, somebody reads this blog:

"'It's poorly informed, poorly supported by science and it is sensationalist,' said Professor Owen Holland of the University of Essex. 'My concern is that we should have an informed debate and it should be an informed debate about the right issues.'"

....

"'I think that concerns about robot rights are just a distraction,' said Professor Winfield.
'The more pressing and serious problem is the extent to which society is prepared to trust autonomous robots and entrust others into the care of autonomous robots.'"

Well said, professors. Unfortunately, the folks in charge of this conversation worship Philip K. Dick. Perhaps "dickiasts" is a better name than "roboticists"? Do morons dream of retarded sheep?