Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people

Ethische Herausforderungen zum Einsatz sozial-assistiver Roboter bei älteren Menschen

  • Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Socially assistive robots are increasingly discussed as solutions in care and domestic use for the support of senior adults; however, this raises ethical questions which hitherto have not been considered or were not predictable. The most important questions are those of privacy and data protection, safety and responsibility as well as involvement of vulnerable persons and deception. Consequently, the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and fairness should be transposed to robotics. Clear answers and solutions are not yet available for every ethical challenge in robotics; however, the development of ethical guidelines for deployment of robots and research in the field of social service robots (SSR) are essential steps in order to embed ethics into dealing with socially assistive robots. This article provides some practical suggestions on this issue from a robotics project.

Zusammenfassung

Sozial-assistive Roboter in der Pflege oder für den Heimgebrauch werden zunehmend als Lösungen zur Unterstützung älterer Menschen diskutiert. Sie werfen jedoch ethische Fragen auf, die bisher nicht angedacht oder vorhersehbar waren. Die wichtigsten sind: Fragen zu Privatsphäre und Datenschutz, zu Sicherheit, Verantwortlichkeit und zum Umgang mit vulnerablen Personen sowie die Frage der Täuschung. Ethische Grundsätze von Nichtschaden, Fürsorge, Autonomie und Fairness sollten dementsprechend auch auf die Robotik umgelegt werden. Nicht für alle ethischen Herausforderungen gibt es in der Robotik bereits klare Antworten. Die Ausarbeitung von Richtlinien zum Einsatz von Robotern oder auch zur Forschung im Bereich „social service robots“ (SSR) ist jedoch ein wichtiger Schritt, um Ethik im Umgang mit sozial-assistiven Robotern zu verankern. Der vorliegende Beitrag trägt hierzu einige praktische Vorschläge aus einem Robotikprojekt bei.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beach S, Schulz R, Downs J, Matthews J, Barron B, Seelman K (2009) Disability, age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: Results from a national web survey. ACM Trans Access Comput 2(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bioethikkommission des Bundeskanzleramts Österreich (2013) Research on Persons without the capacity to consent – with special consideration of the concept of risk. Geschäftsstelle der Bioethikkommission, Wien

  4. Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Denning T, Matuszek C, Koscher K, Smith JR, Kohno T (2009) A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing., pp 105–114

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2015) Demography Report – 2015 Edition. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2011) Socially Assistive Robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2011:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frühwald T (2012) Ethik in der Geriatrie. Z Gerontol Geriatr 45(6):545–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ingram B, Jones D, Lewis A, Richards M, Rich C, Schachterle L (2010) A code of ethics for robotics engineers. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2004) Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc IEEE 92(11):1839–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kitchener KS, Anderson SK (2011) Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology and counseling, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Körtner UHJ (2015) Ehik, Moral. In: Evangelische Ethik Kompakt. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh, pp 33–40

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kothgassner OD, Weber D, Felnhofer A (2011) Geroethics: Ethische Aspekte im Umgang mit assistiven Technologien und altersbedingten Erkrankungen. In: Kryspin-Exner I, Kothgassner OD (eds) Ethik in der Psychologie. Facultas.wuv, Wien, pp 148–159

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lebech M (2004) What is human dignity? Maynooth Philos Pap, Issue 2 :59–69

    Google Scholar 

  17. Manzeschke A, Weber K, Rother E, Fangerau H (2013) Ergebnisse der Studie „Ethische Fragen im Bereich Altersgerechter Assistenzsysteme“. VDI/VDE, Ludwigsfelde

    Google Scholar 

  18. Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6(3):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Operto F (2011) Ethics in advanced robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 1(18):72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Panek P, Mayer P, Schuller F, Zagler WL (2015) Beiträge zur Modellierung von „Persönlichkeit“ bei assistiven Robotern für alte Menschen zwecks besserer Mensch-Roboter Interaktion. In: AAL-Kongress 2015. VDE, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of Women’s Care Work: Should Robots Replace the “Human Touch”? Hypatia 25:100–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Riek LD, Howard D (2014) A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession WeRobot 2014 Conference. University of Miami,

  23. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the Elderly, and Interactive Robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2012) The eldercare factory. Gerontology 58(3):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Turkle, S (2006) Relational artifacts with children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanions. Connection Science 18(4):347–361.

  27. Velasquez M, Andre C, Shanks T, Meyer MJ, Meyer MJ (1987) What is ethics. Issues Ethics 1(1):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Sakamoto K, Tanie K (2005) Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on IEEE. ICRA, pp 2785–2790

  29. Wagner I (2010) Forschungsethik in der Technikentwicklung. In: Körtner U, Kopetzki C, Druml C (eds) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien New York, pp 257–272

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Parts of the research leading to these results and guidelines received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 600623, STRANDS (http://strands.acin.tuwien.ac.at/).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Akademie für Altersforschung am Haus der Barmherzigkeit, Seeböckgasse 30a, 1160, Wien, Österreich

    T. Körtner

Authors
  1. T. Körtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Körtner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

T. Körtner states that there are no conflicts of interest.

The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Körtner, T. Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Z Gerontol Geriat 49, 303–307 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1066-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1066-5

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation