Ethical Considerations Regarding the Use of Social Robots in the Fourth Age

Abstract

The debate about the use of robots in the care of older adults has often been dominated by either overly optimistic visions (coming particularly from Japan), in which robots are seamlessly incorporated into society thereby enhancing quality of life for everyone; or by extremely pessimistic scenarios that paint such a future as horrifying. We reject this dichotomy and argue for a more differentiated ethical evaluation of the possibilities and risks involved with the use of social robots. In a critical discussion surrounding the capabilities approach to the ethical evaluation of quality of life, we develop an ethical framework that is more appropriate to the situation of the oldest old. We urge employment of a context-dependent approach to the ethical evaluation of new technologies in the care and therapy of older adults, and using the example of the robotic seal Paro, we show how this can be accomplished in a sensible and practical way.

A Tale of Two Deficits: Causality and Care in Medical AI

“…Would the Capabilities Approach not be a useful way to capture the normative aspect of positive health and guide one's considerations in the medical domain? I am not alone in this thought: gerontologists who accept the notion of positive health in their conception of aging well are becoming increasingly persuaded by (i) the normative foundations that the Capabilities Approach can provide (Misselhorn et al 2013;Ehni et al 2018) and (ii) its applicability to our evaluation of technology that is being used in the care of older people (Coeckelbergh 2012). Once the normative foundations of the Capabilities Approach are recognized in the medical AI context, we would still have to determine whether these central capabilities form a list (Nussbaum's position), a web (Misselhorn et al 2013), or something other than a pre-determined and canonical list (Sen's position) and whether they stand in need of further theoretical supplementation (Ehni et al 2018).…”

Wege zu verantwortungsvoller Forschung und Entwicklung im Bereich der Pflegerobotik: Die ambivalente Rolle der Ethik

“…Symptomatisch ist, dass die entworfenen Anwendungsszenarien ein unterkomplexes Bild der Pflege zeichnen, insofern durch die Fokussierung auf die sozial isolierenden Effekte der Technologie die komplexen soziotechnischen Zusammenhänge der Pflegeinteraktion systematisch unterbelichtet bleiben. Verschiedene Autoren haben deshalb von der Ethik gefordert, ihre Analysen zur Pflegerobotik weniger auf abstrakte Spekulationen zu stützen, sondern stärker am tatsächlichen Gebrauch der Technologien auszurichten (Nylander et al 2012) und vor allem die dynamischen Wechselwirkungen zwischen Technik und sozialen Nutzungskontexten nicht außer Acht zu lassen (Misselhorn et al 2013). "Ethics is a journey, and new technologies influence the story" (Coeckelbergh 2016).…”

Hvordan kan aktivitet med selroboten Paro fremme helse hos sykehjemsbeboere med en demenssykdom?

“…Av plasshensyn omfatter ikke denne artikkelen etiske dilemmaer som kan oppstå gjennom å anvende robotdyr i miljøtiltak. Noen studier tar opp at sykehjemsbeboere med demens kan bli lurt til å tro at Paro er levende, eller at aktivitet med en dukke/robot kan virke infantiliserende og dermed oppleves som verdighetskrenkende (Misselhorn, Pompe, & Stapleton, 2013;Sharkey & Sharkey, 2010;Sparrow & Sparrow, 2006). Disse problemstillingene har jeg diskutert annetsteds (Jøranson, 2016).…”