Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 313–326 | Cite as

Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues

  • Athena McLeanEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The reality of an ageing Europe has called attention to the importance of e-inclusion for a growing population of senior citizens. For some, this may mean closing the digital divide by providing access and support to technologies that increase citizen participation; for others, e-inclusion means access to assistive technologies to facilitate and extend their living independently. These initiatives address a social need and provide economic opportunities for European industry. While undoubtedly desirable, and supported by European Union initiatives, several cultural assumptions or issues related to the initiatives could benefit from fuller examination, as could their practical and ethical implications. This paper begins to consider these theoretical and practical concerns. The first part of the paper examines cultural issues and assumptions relevant to adopting e-technologies, and the ethical principles applied to them. These include (1) the persistence of ageism, even in e-inclusion; (2) different approaches to, and implications of independent living; and (3) the values associated with different ethical principles, given their implications for accountability to older users. The paper then discusses practical issues and ethical concerns that have been raised by the use of smart home and monitoring technologies with older persons. Understanding these assumptions and their implications will allow for more informed choices in promoting ethical application of e-solutions for older persons.

Keywords

E-inclusion Senior citizens Ethics Ageism Cultural assumptions Views on independent living Western views of ethics Smart home and monitoring technologies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Emilio Mordini for inviting me to present an earlier version of this paper at Socio-Anthropological Workshop on ICT and Ageing, June 2–3, 208, Brussels, for the SENIOR (Social, Ethical, and Privacy Needs in ICT for Older People) Project. I appreciate the opportunity to have conducted ethnographic research with the TRIL (Technology Research for Independent Living) Centre in Ireland. I thank Eamon O’Shea, Irish Centre for Social Geronotology, National University of Ireland for his collegiality and support in helping me complete a working paper from which this developed. Finally, my gratitude to Central Michigan University for allowing me the time to avail myself of these opportunities.

References

  1. Agich, G. (2003). Dependence and autonomy in old age: An ethical framework for long-term care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, M. (1999). The seductiveness of agelessness. Ageing and Society, 19, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, J. (2001). The person. In D. Thomasma, D. Weisstub, & C. Hervé (Eds.), Personhood and health care (pp. 55–58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Blaikie, A. (1999). Ageing and popular culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowling, A., et al. (2003). Let’s ask them: A national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56(4), 269–306.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bytheway, B. (1995). Ageism. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bytheway, B. (2000). Youthfulness and agelessness a comment. Ageing and Society, 20, 781–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christakis, N. (1992). Ethics are local: Engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Social Science and Medicine, 35(9), 1079–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, T. (1983). The ‘Enlightened’ view of aging: Victorian morality in a new key. The Hastings Center Report, June, 34–40.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, T. (1992). The journey of life: A cultural history of aging in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Comyn, G., Olsson, S., Guenzler, R., Özcivelek, R., Zinnbauer, D., & Cabrera, M. (2006). User needs in ICT research for independent living, with a focus on health aspects. (Report on a Joint DG JRC/IPTS-DG INFSO Workshop held in Brussels, 24 and 25 November 2005). Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Directorate General Joint Research Centre European Commission), Directorate General Information Society and Media (ICT for Health Unit).Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, D., & Turner-Smith, A. (1999). The role of assistive technology in alternative models of care for older people. In A. Tinker et al. (Ed.), Research volume 2, alternative models of care for older people. Appendix 4 (pp. 325–346). Stationery Office, London: Royal Commission on Long Term Care.Google Scholar
  13. Culliton, G. (2008). Older peoplei. Irish Medical Times, 42(19), 1.Google Scholar
  14. Dienel, H.-L., Peine, A., & Cameron, H. (2004). New participative tools in product development for seniors. In D. Burdick & S. Kwon (Eds.), Gerotechnology: Research and practice in technology and aging: A textbook and reference for multiple disciplines (pp. 224–241). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Dishman, E. (2004). Healthcare revolution: Technologies enable seniors to age gracefully at home. Technology@Intel Magazine. November 2004.Google Scholar
  16. Featherstone, M., & Hepworth, M. (1991). The mask of ageing and the postmodern life course. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), The body: Social process and cultural theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Garcia, E. L., et al. (2005). Social network and health-related quality of life in older adults: A population-based study in Spain. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass, C., Mustian, R., & Carter, L. (1986). Knowledge and attitudes of health care providers toward sexuality in the institutionalized elderly. Educational Gerontology, 12, 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greaves, C. J., & Farbus, L. (2006). Effects of creative and social activity on the health and well-being of socially isolated older people: Outcomes from a multi-method observational study. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(3), 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammel, J. (2004). Assistive technology as tools for everyday living and community participation while aging. In D. Burdick & S. Kwon (Eds.), Gerotechnology: Research and practice in technology and aging: A textbook and reference for multiple disciplines (pp. 119–132). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1995). Cyborgs and symbionts: Living together in the new world order. In C. Habels (Ed.), The cyborg handbook (pp. xi–xx). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Holstein, M., & Minkler, M. (2003). Self, society, and the “new gerontology”. The Gerontologist, 43(6), 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane, R. L. (1996). The evolution of the American nursing home. In R. H. Binstock, L. E. Cluff, & O. von Mering (Eds.), The future of long-term care: Social and policy issues (pp. 145–168). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kane, R. L., & West, J. C. (2005). It shouldn’t be this way: The failure of long-term care. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Katz, S. (2000). Busy bodies: Activity, aging, and the management of everyday life. Journal of Aging Studies, 14(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeting, D., Nayeem, K., Gilmartin, J. J., & O’Keeffe, S. (2005). Advance directives for truth disclosure. Chest, 128(2), 1037–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lefebvre, H. (2004[1992]). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (S. Elden & G. Moore, Trans.). London and New York: Continuum (1992 French Ed.).Google Scholar
  28. Lichtenberg, P., & Strezpek, D. (1990). Assessments of institutionalized dementia patients’ competencies to participate in intimate relationships. The Gerontologist, 30(1), 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Litwin, H. (1998). Social network type and health status in a national sample of elderly Israelis. Social Science and Medicine, 46(4–5), 599–609.Google Scholar
  30. Lund, R., et al. (2004). Development in self-rated health among older people as determinant of social relations. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32(6), 419–425.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacMillan, D. (2006). A new breed of tech for the aging. Business Week, 6 Dcember 2006. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061205_555322.htm.
  32. Marshall, Mary. (2005). Promoting independence through design of the environment. In Alistair. Burns (Ed.), Standards of dementia care (p. 282). London and New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  33. McHugh, K. (2003). Three faces of ageism: Society, image and place. Ageing & Society, 23, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLean, A. (2007). The person in dementia: A study of nursing home care in the US. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (originally, Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press).Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, S., & Mollenkopf, H. (2003). Home technology, smart homes and the aging user. In K. W. Schaie, H.-W. Wahl, H. Mollenkopf, & F. Oswald (Eds.), Aging independently: Living arrangements and mobility (pp. 148–161). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Minkler, M., & Holstein, M. (2008). From civil rights to… civic engagement? Concerns of two older critical gerontologists about a “new social movement” and what it portends. Journal of Aging Studies, 22, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mollenkopf, H. (2003). Comment: Assistive technology: Potential and preconditions of useful applications. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 203–214). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Mollenkopf, H. (2004). Aging and technology—social science approaches. In D. Burdick & S. Kwon (Eds.), Gerotechnology: Research and practice in technology and aging: A textbook and reference for multiple disciplines (pp. 54–70). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  39. Mordini, E. (2007). Technology and fear: Is wonder the key? Trends in Biotechnology, 25(12), 544–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mordini, E., Wright, D., Wadhwa, K., De Hert, P., Mantovani, E., Thestrup, J., Van Steendam, G., D’Amico, A., & Vater, I. (2009). Senior citizens and the ethics of e-inclusion. Ethics and Information Technology. Published online: 03 April 2009.Google Scholar
  41. Morris, M. (2005). Social networks as health feedback displays. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(5), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morris, A., Goodman, J., & Brading, H. (2007). Internet use and non-use: Views of older users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morris, M., Lundell, J., & Dishman, E. (2004). Catalyzing social interaction with ubiquitous computing: needs assessment of elders coping with cognitive decline. CHI 2004, (24–29 April). Austria: Vienna.Google Scholar
  44. Morris, M., Lundell, J., Dishman, E. & Needham, B. (2003). New perspectives on ubiquitous computing from an ethnographic study of elders with cognitive decline. In A. Dey, A. Schmidt, & J. F. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th international conference on UbiComp 2003: Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 227–242). Seattle, Washington, USA, 12–15 October 2003 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Morrow, D. (2003). Commentary: Gerotechnology: Technology as environmental support for older adults’ daily activities. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 290–305). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Novak, D. (2001). The human person as the image of God. In D. Thomasma, D. Weisstub, & C. Hervé (Eds.), Personhood and health care (pp. 43–54). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Peace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2006). Environment and identity in later life. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pols, J. (2010). Caring devices. About warmth, coldness and ‘fit’ [Special issue: ‘Care and Health Care.”]. Medische Antropologie, 22(1), 143–161.Google Scholar
  49. Post, S. (2000). Alzheimer’s disease in a hypercognitive society. In P. Whitehouse, K. Mauer, & J. Ballenger (Eds.), Concepts of Alzheimer’s disease: Biological, clinical and cultural perspectives (pp. 245–256). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pragnell, M., Spence, L., & Moore, R. (2000). The market potential for smart homes. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Layerthorpe, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. Rhodes, L. (1991). Emptying beds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory Culture Society, 18, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowe, J., & Kahn, R. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37(4), 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rozanova, J. (2010). Discourse of successful aging in The Globe & Mail: Insights from critical gerontology. Journal of Aging Studies, 24, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. SOPRANO (Service oriented programmable smart environments for older Europeans) Project. (2007). Review of HIC Concepts and E&AR Deliverable D1.1.1, May 2007.Google Scholar
  57. Steg, H., Strese, H., Loroff, C., Hull, J., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Europe is facing a demographic challenge, ambient assisted living offers solutions. IST Project Report on Ambient Assisted Living (March).Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, W. (2004). What are old people good for?. Acton, MA: VanderWyk & Burnham.Google Scholar
  59. Tinker, A., McCreadie, C., Stuchbury, R., Turner-Smith, A., Cowan, D., Bialokoz, A., Lansley, P., Bright, K., Flanagan, S., Goodacre, K., Holmans, A. (2004). Introducing assistive technology into the existing homes of older people: Feasibility, acceptability, costs, and outcomes. Institute of Gerontology King’s College London. King’s College London and the University of Reading. ISBN 1-872342-17-5.Google Scholar
  60. Valin, K. (n.d.) The European Union (EU) 7th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP7) for Research & Development (R&D): The Information & Communication Technologies (ICT). Theme, START Project, European Commission. http://www.cipaco.org/sources/FP7_Reference_Presentation.pdf.
  61. van Berlo, A. (2005). Smart houses and smart living for senior citizens. Silver Economy, Bonn: European Conference.Google Scholar
  62. Vladeck, B. (2003). Unloving care revisited: The persistence of culture. In A. Weiner & J. Ronch (Eds.), Culture change in long-term care (pp. 1–9). New York: The Haworth Social Work Practice Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vladeck, B. (2004). Foreword. In T. E. Gass (Ed.), Nobody’s home: Candid reflections of a nursing home aid. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  64. World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework, a contribution of the World Health Organization to the Second United Nations World Assembly on ageing. Madrid, Spain: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  65. Wright, D. (2008). Summary of SENIOR Deliverable D1.1Environmental scanning report prepared by, trilateral research & consulting, London, 25 May 2008.Google Scholar
  66. Wright, D. (2009). Good practices in e-inclusion, ethical guidance and designing a dialogue roadmap. The senior project: Social ethical and privacy needs in ICT for older people: A dialogue roadmap. November 2009.Google Scholar
  67. Ybarra, O., Burnstein, E., Winkielman, P., Keller, M., Manis, M., Chan, E., & Rodriguez, J. (2008). Mental exercising through simple socializing: Social interaction promotes general cognitive functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 248–259.Google Scholar
  68. Zwijsen, S., Niemeijer, A., & Hertogh, C. (2011). Ethics of using assistive technology in the care of community-dwelling elderly people: An overview of the literature. Aging and Mental Health, 15(4), 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social WorkCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  2. 2.OkemosUSA

Personalised recommendations