Aging 4.0? Rethinking the ethical framing of technology-assisted eldercare

Author:

Schicktanz SilkeORCID,Schweda MarkORCID

Abstract

AbstractTechnological approaches are increasingly discussed as a solution for the provision of support in activities of daily living as well as in medical and nursing care for older people. The development and implementation of such assistive technologies for eldercare raise manifold ethical, legal, and social questions. The discussion of these questions is influenced by theoretical perspectives and approaches from medical and nursing ethics, especially the principlist framework of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Tying in with previous criticism, the present contribution is taking these principles as a starting point and as a frame of reference to be critically re-examined. It thus aims to outline how existing ethical frameworks need to be extended or reconsidered to capture the ethical issues posed by technological developments regarding care for older people. In a first step, we provide a brief overview of assistive technologies in eldercare according to their purposes and functions. In the next step, we discuss how the questions and problems raised by new technologies in eldercare call for an expansion, re-interpretation, and revision of the principlist framework. We underline that the inclusion of ethical perspectives from engineering and computer science as well as a closer consideration of socio-political dimensions and fundamental anthropological and praxeological questions are needed.

Funder

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History

Reference80 articles.

1. Ammicht Quinn, R., Beimborn, M., Kadi, S., Köberer, N., Mühleck, M., Spindler, M., & Tulatz, K. (2015). Alter ein Fragen- und Kriterienkatalog. Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen.

2. Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2008). ETHEL: Toward a principled ethical eldercare robot. In AAAI fall symposium: AI in eldercare: New solutions to old problems. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7189/e81875aff100a74aa288ea761e52843371b6.pdf.

3. Arnold, D. G. (Ed.) (2009). Ethics and the business of biomedicine. Cambridge University Press.

4. Aujoulat, I., Marcolongo, R., Bonadiman, L., & Deccache, A. (2008). Reconsidering patient empowerment in chronic illness: A critique of models of self-efficacy and bodily control. Social Science & Medicine, 66(5), 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.034

5. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3