Abstract
Much has been written about the benefits, for example, greater independence, autonomy, and dignity, which can derive from the use of assistive technologies with older people (Loader, Hardey, & Keeble, 2009; McCreadie & Tinker, 2005; Poser & Moser, 2009). These benefits have been well researched, clearly expressed in the literature, and remain uncontested here. Apart from benefits to individuals and carers, assistive technologies can release funds for other applications, and where this is in care settings funded through public expenditure, the cost savings that might arise from their application may afford the opportunity for more effective targeting of taxpayer’s resources. As the Audit Commission (guardian of public expenditure in the UK) noted, the use of technology represents the unusual possibility of providing cost savings at the same time as better service provision (Audit Commission, 2004). The merits then are evident. But there is a need also to be alert to the ethical questions that arise as a concomitant to the use of new technologies and to address what Mort, Roberts, and Milligan (2009) have argued is an “ethical and democratic deficit in this field which has arisen due to a proliferation in research and development of advanced care technologies that has not been accompanied by sufficient consideration of their social context” (p. 85). This chapter will raise these ethical issues, alight on the potential deficits, and highlight some of the policy and practical issues that might warrant further inquiry. It does so by addressing three key areas. First, it considers ethical approaches commonly in use and their limitations for application in the field of assistive technologies. Second, it explores the ethical issues that arise around the design and execution of research with users of assistive technologies. Third, it raises the question of whether or not assistive technologies contribute to a better quality of life (QoL) for recipients, not least because QoL is explicitly included as an intended policy outcome of the deployment of such technologies (Scottish Government, 2009; Telecare Services, 2010). The chapter draws its examples primarily from the experience of the UK (and its devolved polities), where the policy objectives of governments for extending the use of assistive technologies are particularly ambitious. We are mindful of the methodological pitfalls of cross-national applicability, but the discussion should have broader resonance, as ethical approaches and practices come to terms with a technologically fast-changing world. Our use of the term assistive technologies embraces the definition of any item, piece of equipment, product, or system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities (Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, 1988 P.L.100/407); more practicably, as Cowan and Turner Smith (cited in McCreadie & Tinker, 2005) note, it refers to any device or system that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do or increases the ease and safety with which the task can be performed. We note in particular that some of the more interesting ethical challenges have arrived with the advent of telecare sensor-based technologies, which open up important issues around privacy, autonomy, and the potential for replacement of human care through remote monitoring.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audit Commission. (2004). Implementing telecare. London: Audit Commission.
Banks, S., & Gallagher, A. (2009). Ethics in professional life: Virtues for health and social care. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barnes, M. (2006). Caring and social justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
BBC News. (2001). The Alder Hey report. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1144774.stm
Beauchamp, L., & Childress, A. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blane, D., Wiggins, R., Higgs, P. & Hyde, M. (2002). Inequalities in quality of life in early old age. Research Findings from the Growing Older Programme, 9.
Blaschke, C., Freddolino, P., & Mullen, E. (2009). Ageing and technology: A review of the research literature. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 641–656.
Bouma, H. (2010). Professional ethics in gerontechnology: A pragmatic approach. Gerontechnology, 9(4), 429–432.
Brandt, A., Samuelsson, K., Toytari, O., & Salminen, A-L. (2010) Activity and participation, quality of life and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, Early Online, 1–18.
Cooper, A. (2012). Complexity, identity, failure: Contemporary challenges to working together. In J. Forbes & C. Watson (Eds.), The transformation of children’s services. New York: Routledge.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and introversion on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Zonderman, A. B. (1987). Environmental and dispositional influences on well-being: Longitudinal follow-up of an American national sample. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 299–306.
Damodaran, L., Olphert, C. W., & Hardill, I. (2010). Some ethical considerations about informed consent by older people to assisted living technologies and the participation of older people in ICT research. Gerontechnology, 9(2), 85–86.
Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., & Prior, S. (2007). Methods for human-computer interaction research with older people. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(4), 343–352.
Dickinson, A., & Gregor, P. (2006). Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the well-being of older adults. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 744–753.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 235, 542–575.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. In M. E. P. Seligman & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds), Special issue on happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
Driver, J. (2007). Ethics: The fundamentals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eccles, A. (2008). Singe shared assessment: The limits to ‘quick fix’ implementation. Journal of Integrated Care, 16(1), 22–30.
Eccles, A. (2010, April). Ethical considerations around the implementation of Telecare technologies. Paper presented at SICSA Socio-Technical Systems Conference, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Mival, O., Syme, A., & Tiwari, L. (2003). Mutual inspiration in the development of new technology for older people. Include, March, 7:252–7:259.
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Close to home: An enquiry into older people and human rights in home care. London: EHCR.
ESRC. (2010). Framework for Research Ethics (FRE). Retrieved February 9, 2011 from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf
European Union Public Health Information System. (2009). Population projections. Retrieved February 5, 2010 from http://www.euphix.org/object_document/o5116n27112.html
Finch, T., Mort, M., Mair, F. S., & May, C. (2008). Future patients? Telehealthcare, roles and responsibilities. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(1), 86–95.
Forrester Research & Microsoft Corporation. (2003). New research study shows 57 percent of adult computer users can benefit from accessible technology. Retrieved February 1, 2010 from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/feb04/02-02AdultUserBenefitsPR.mspx
Frisby, B. (2000). ASTRID: A guide to using technology in dementia care. London: Hawker.
Gajos, K. Z., Wobbrock, J. O., & Weld, D. S. (2007). Automatically generating user interfaces adapted to users’ motor and vision capabilities. In UIST’07: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 231–240). New York: ACM Press.
Gregor, P., Newell, A. F., & Zajicek, M. (2002). Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. In ASSETS’02: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (pp. 151–156). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Hanson, J., Osipovic, D., & Percival, J. (2009). Making sense of sensors. In B. Loader, M. Hardey, & L. Keeble (Eds.), Digital welfare for the third age (pp. 91–111). London: Routledge.
Hawthorn, D. (2000). Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interacting with Computers, 12, 507–528.
Irvine, R., Kerridge, I., McPhee, J., & Freeman, S. (2002). Interprofessionalism and ethics: Consensus or clash of cultures? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(3), 199–210.
Jennett, P. A., Affleck Hall, L., Hailey, D., Ohinmaa, A., Anderson, C., Thomas, R., et al. (2003). The socio-economic impact of telehealth: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9(6), 311–320.
Loader, B. (2005). Necessary virtues: The legitimate place of the state in the production of security. Retrieved from http://www.libertysecurity.org/article232.html
Loader, B., Hardey, M., & Keeble, L. (Eds.). (2009). Digital welfare for the third age. London: Routledge.
Lowe, C. (2009). Beyond telecare: The future of independent living. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(1), 21–23.
Macduff, C., West, B., & Harvey, S. (2001). Telemedicine in rural care. Part 2: Assessing the wider issues. Nursing Standard, 15(33), 33–38.
Malik, S. A., Alistair, D., & Edwards, N. (2008). Retrieved January 7, 2011 from http://wwwedc.eng.cam.ac.uk/~jag76/hci_workshop08/malik.pdf
Manton, K. (1989). Epidemiological, demographic and social correlates of disability among the elderly. The Millbank Quarterly, 67(Siupp.2 PI), 13–58.
McCreadie, C., & Tinker, A. (2005). The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing and Society, 25, 91–110.
Meagher, G., & Parton, N. (2004). Modernising social work and the ethics of care. Social Work and Society, 2(1), 10–27.
Mort, M., Roberts, C., & Milligan, C. (2009). Ageing, technology and the home: A critical project. European Journal of Disability Research, 3, 85–89.
Myatt, E. D., Essa, I., & Rogers, W. (2000). Increasing the opportunities for ageing in place, in: Proceedings of the ACM conference on universal usability (pp. 39–44). New York/Washington, DC: ACM Press.
Nazroo, J., Bajekal, M., Blane, Grewal, I., & Lewis, J. (2003). Ethnic inequalities in quality of life at older ages: Subjective and objective components. Research Findings: 11. From the Growing Older Programme, January. Retrieved from http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gop/index/htm
Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2002). Design for older and disabled people—where do we go from here? Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 3–7. Retrieved December 14, 2010 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/8c279eqq580uc9vf/
Olphert, C. W., Damodaran, L., Balatsoukas, P., & Parkinson, C. (2009). Process requirements for building sustainable digital assistive technology for older people. Journal of Assistive Technology, 3(3), 4–13.
Phillips, J. (2007). Care. Oxford: Polity.
Pols, J., & Moser, I. (2009). Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. European Journal of Disability Research, 3, 159–178.
Rapley, M. (2003). Quality of life research: A critical introduction. London: Sage.
Ridley, G., & Young, J. (2005). Outcomes of international e-health implementations. In Aged Care, Proceedings of NACIC’05 National Aged Care Informatics Conference, Hobart, Australia.
Scottish Government. (2008). Telecare in Scotland: Benchmarking the present, embracing the future. Edinburgh: Crown Copyright.
Scottish Government. (2009). Evaluation of the telecare development programme: Final report. Edinburgh: Crown Copyright.
Sloan, D., Atkinson, M., Machin, C., & Li, Y. (2010, April). The potential of adaptive interfaces as an accessibility aid for older web users. Accepted for presentation at: W4A 2010: The 7th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Sus-ITproject. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.newdynamics.group.shef.ac.uk/sus-it.html. Retrieved December 14, 2010 from http://www.sus-it.lboro.ac.uk/
Tao, J., & Drover, G. (1997). Chinese and western notions of need. Critical Social Policy, 17, 5–25.
Telecare Services Association. (2010). The true value of telecare services. Accessed November 29, 2011 from http://www.telecare.org.uk/information/45779/48672/48675/the_true_value_of_telecare_services/
The Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Accessed February 11, 2011 from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc1
The British Psychological Society. (2009). Code of ethics and conduct. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file_uuid=E6917759-9799-434A-F313-9C35698E1864&ext=pdf
The Nuremberg Code. (1949). Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html
Tronto, J. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routeledge.
Tunstall, R. (2009). Assessing local authority and neighborhood variations in the likely impact of the recession on renters and landlords. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/HAS/Paper%209%20%20LA%20&%20neighbourhood%20variations%20.pdf
Twigg, J. (1999). The spatial ordering of care: Public and private in bathing support at home. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(4), 381–400.
UNESCO-CEPES. (2004). Evaluation of the UNESCO-CEPES. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001449/144949e.pdf
Wilmot, S. (1997). The ethics of community care. London: Cassell.
Wood, R., & Bain, M. (2001). The health and well-being of older people in Scotland: Insights from national data. Edinburgh: Information and Statistics Division, Common Services Agency for NHS Scotland.
World Health Organization Quality of Life Group. (1993). Measuring quality of life: The development of the World Health Organization Quality Of Life Instrument (WHOQOL). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Zajicek, M. (2004). Successful and available: Interface design exemplars for older users. Interacting with Computers, 16(3), 411–430.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eccles, A., Damodaran, L., Olphert, W., Hardill, I., Gilhooly, M. (2013). Assistive Technologies: Ethical Practice, Ethical Research, and Quality of Life. In: Sixsmith, A., Gutman, G. (eds) Technologies for Active Aging. International Perspectives on Aging, vol 9. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8348-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8348-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-8347-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-8348-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)