Abstract
Different embodiments of technology permeate all layers of public and private domains in society. In the public domain of aged care, attention is increasingly focused on the use of socially assistive robots (SARs) supporting caregivers and older adults to guarantee that older adults receive care. The introduction of SARs in aged-care contexts is joint by intensive empirical and philosophical research. Although these efforts merit praise, current empirical and philosophical research are still too far separated. Strengthening the connection between these two fields is crucial to have a full understanding of the ethical impact of these technological artefacts. To bridge this gap, we propose a philosophical-ethical framework for SAR use, one that is grounded in the dialogue between empirical-ethical knowledge about and philosophical-ethical reflection on SAR use. We highlight the importance of considering the intuitions of older adults and their caregivers in this framework. Grounding philosophical-ethical reflection in these intuitions opens the ethics of SAR use in aged care to its own socio-historical contextualisation. Referring to the work of Margaret Urban Walker, Joan Tronto and Andrew Feenberg, it is argued that this socio-historical contextualisation of the ethics of SAR use already has strong philosophical underpinnings. Moreover, this contextualisation enables us to formulate a rudimentary decision-making process about SAR use in aged care which rests on three pillars: (1) stakeholders’ intuitions about SAR use as sources of knowledge; (2) interpretative dialogues as democratic spaces to discuss the ethics of SAR use; (3) the concretisation of ethics in SAR use.
Subject
Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Reference48 articles.
1. Abdi J , Al-Hindawi A , Ng T , et al . Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 2018;8(2):e018815.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815
2. den Hond B , Mols B , Vermeer B . Robotics for future presidents. In: Leading experts on the next revolution in automation. Delft: TU Delft Institute, 2016.
3. Butter . Robotics for healthcare. final report, 2008. Available: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/56cf5105-467e-476b a374-a880fb0730ec/language-en/format-PDF/source-71462906 [Accessed 14 Mar 2019].
4. Feil-Seifer D , Matarić MJ . Defining socially assistive robotics. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on rehabilitation robotics. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2005: 465–8.
5. Vandemeulebroucke T , Dierckx de Casterlé B , Welbergen L , et al . The ethics of socially assistive robots in aged care. A focus group study with older adults in Flanders, Belgium. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2019:gbz070.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbz070
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献