Abstract
This paper is a discussion of some of the ethical issues relevant to the use of social robots to care for older people in their homes, drawing on qualitative data collected as part of the Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNg Years project. We consider some of the tensions that can be created between older people, their formal (professional) carers, and their informal carers (for example friends or relatives), when a care robot is introduced into the home of an older person. As examples of these tensions, we discuss the use of the care robot as a monitor of older people and carers, for example to ensure older people’s compliance with healthcare regimes, or to police the behaviour of carers to ensure that they are complying with professional guidelines. We also consider the use of care robots in a companionship role for older people, and describe the importance of clearly-delineated roles for care robots. The paper concludes that older people’s autonomy can be limited in the short term in order to protect their longer-term autonomy, and that even if care robots should primarily be considered as being for healthcare rather than for companionship, they might still be used sensitively so that their interference with the companionship role is minimised.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It might be argued that giving an older person an alcoholic drink that will harm their health does not really count as assisting them, even if it is consistent with their desires. Whether we conceive of “assistance” as being interest-based or desire-based, it remains the case that assisting an older person may conflict with assisting their carer(s). For simplicity’s sake, this paper will use “interests” broadly, to refer to both the satisfaction of desires or preferences, and benefit that may be independent of desires (such as pleasure), therefore ignoring the fact that desires and interests are distinct and can diverge and conflict (as is widely recognised in the relevant philosophical literature [14–19]). For our purposes here it is sufficient to say that furthering an older person’s desires or interests may conflict with the desires and/or interests of their carers. For a discussion of conflicts between older people’s desires and their interests in the context of care robots, see Sorell and Draper [4].
Quotations will follow this format: the site name is reported first, then the focus group, and finally the individual participant code. This is with the exception of quotations with multiple speakers, in which case participants will be identified as they speak.
The use of this word is not intended to suggest that carers view the task of caring as burdensome, or that they do not wish to undertake it. Rather, it serves as a convenient term to describe a task for which responsibility must be divided up. This terminology tracks that used by Vallor [23], and her discussion indicates that she is similarly cautious about the use of this term.
Sorell and Draper [29] dispute this understanding of monitoring, however.
References
Smarr C, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, Prakash A, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2014) Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot 6:229–247
Yamakazi R, Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Nørskov M, Ishiguro N, Balistreri G (2014) Acceptability of a teleoperated android by senior citizens in Danish Society. Int J Soc Robot 6:429–442
Robinson H, MacDonald B, Broadbent E (2014) The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int J Soc Robot 6:575–591
Sorell T, Draper H (2014) Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16:183–195
Draper H, Sorell T (2014) Deliverable 6.4: report on data analysis aspect of ethics evaluation. ACCOMPANY. http://rehabilitationrobotics.net/cms2/sites/default/files/ACCOMPANY%20D6.4_Data%20Analysis%20aspect_ethics%20eval.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2015
Ritchie J, Spencer L (2002) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman AM, Miles MB (eds) The qualitative researcher’s companion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 305–330
Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K (2004) What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Med Healthc Philos 7:41–53
Kon AA (2009) The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am J Bioeth 9(6–7):59–65
Draper H, Sorell T, Bedaf S, Syrdal DS, Gutierrez-Ruiz C, Duclos A, Amirabdollahian F (2014) Ethical dimensions of human-robot interactions in the care of older people: insights from focus groups convened in UK, France and the Netherlands. Lect Notes Comput Sci (Lect Notes Artif Intell) 8755:138–147
Draper H, Sorell T (2014) Using robots to modify demanding or impolite behavior of older people. Lect Notes Comput Sci (Lect Notes Artif Intell) 8755:125–134
Saldaña J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, London
Glaser BG (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 2(4):436–445
Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2010) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14:27–40
Mill JS (2003) On liberty. Yale University Press, New Haven
Mill JS (1864) Utilitarianism, 2nd edn. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, London
Nagel T (1970) The possibility of altruism. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Frey RG (1979) Rights, interests, desires and beliefs. Am Philos Q 16:233–239
Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Singer P (2011) Practical ethics, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Faucounau V, Wu Y, Boulay H, Maestrutti M, Rigaud AS (2009) Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technol Health Care 17:33–40
Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf Technol 12:277–288
Sharkey A (2014) Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16:63–75
Vallor S (2011) Carebots and caregivers: sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. Philos Technol 24:251–268
Hansson SO (2007) The ethics of enabling technology. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 16:257–267
O’Keeffe M, Hills A, Doyle M, McCreadie C, Scholes S, Constantine R, Tinker A, Manthorpe J, Biggs S, Erens B (2007) UK study of abuse and neglect of older people: prevalence survey report. Comic Relief & the Department of Health, London
Cooper C, Selwood A, Livingston G (2008) The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review. Age Ageing 37:151–160
Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16:141–161
Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1:319–330
Sorell T, Draper H (2012) Telecare, surveillance, and the welfare state. Am J Bioeth 12:36–44
Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Jama (J Am Med Assoc) 13(114–120):e1
Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8:94–103
Draper H, Sorell T (2014) Deliverable 6.6: a tentative proposal for an ethical framework. ACCOMPANY. http://rehabilitationrobotics.net/cms2/sites/default/files/ACCOMPANY%20D6.6_Ethical%20framework.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015
van Wynsberghe A (2013) Designing robots for care: care centred value-sensitive design. Sci Eng Ethics 19:407–433
Oosterlaken I (2009) Design for development: a capability approach. Des Issues 25:91–102
Acknowledgments
The work in this paper was partially funded by the European project ACCOMPANY (Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNg Years). Grant Agreement No.: 287624. We are grateful to the ACCOMPANY partners: the University of Warwick, ZUYD, UH, MADoPA, particularly Sandra Bedaf, Tom Sorell, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Carolina Gutierrez-Ruiz, Hagen Lehmann, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Gert-Jan Gelderblom, Hervé Michel, and Helena Lee, each of whom helped with data collection and the initial analysis of the data. Thanks also to each of our study participants.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from the study participants where appropriate.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jenkins, S., Draper, H. Care, Monitoring, and Companionship: Views on Care Robots from Older People and Their Carers. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 673–683 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0322-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0322-y