Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
article

Robots in aged care: a dystopian future?

Published: 01 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper I describe a future in which persons in advanced old age are cared for entirely by robots and suggest that this would be a dystopia, which we would be well advised to avoid if we can. Paying attention to the objective elements of welfare rather than to people's happiness reveals the central importance of respect and recognition, which robots cannot provide, to the practice of aged care. A realistic appreciation of the current economics of the aged care sector suggests that the introduction of robots into an aged care setting will most likely threaten rather than enhance these goods. I argue that, as a result, robotics for aged care is likely to transform aged care in accordance with a trajectory that leads towards this dystopian future even when this is not the intention of the engineers involved. While an argument can be made for the use of robots in aged care where the people being cared for have chosen to allow robots in this role, I suggest that overemphasising this possibility risks rendering it a self-fulfilling prophecy, depriving those being cared for of valuable social recognition, and failing to provide respect for older persons by allowing the options available to them to be shaped by the design choices of others.

References

[1]
Aristotle (2004) The politics (E. Barker, Trans.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[2]
Arneson RJ (1999) Human flourishing versus desire satisfaction. Soc Philos Policy 16(1):113-142.
[3]
Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):277-288.
[4]
Coeckelbergh M (2012) "How I learned to love the robot": Capabilities, information technologies, and elderly care. In: Oosterlaken I, van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77-86.
[5]
Elster J (1985) Sour grapes: studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[6]
Fraser N (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a 'post-socialist' age. New Left Rev 212:68-93.
[7]
Griffin J (1986) Well-being. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[8]
Hegel GWF (1977) Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[9]
Heidegger M (1993) The question concerning technology. In: Basic writings (Rev. and expanded ed). Harper, San Francisco.
[10]
Honneth A (1992) Integrity and disrespect: principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Polit Theory 20(2):187-201.
[11]
Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state and Utopia. Basic Books, New York.
[12]
Nussbaum MC (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[13]
Nussbaum MC (2011) Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[14]
Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[15]
Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of women's care work: should robots replace the "human touch"? Hypatia 25(1):100-120.
[16]
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[17]
Rice CM (2013) Defending the objective list theory of well-being. Ratio 1(2):196-211.
[18]
Schaeffer C, May T (1999) Care-o-bot-a system for assisting elderly or disabled persons in home environments. In: Buhler C, Knops H (eds) Assistive technology on the threshold of the new millenium. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
[19]
Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Knopf, New York.
[20]
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(1):63-75.
[21]
Sorell T, Draper H (2014) Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16:183-195.
[22]
Sparrow R (2002) The march of the robot dogs. Ethics Inf Technol 4(4):305-318.
[23]
Sparrow R (2004) The turing triage test. Ethics Inf Technol 6(4):203-213.
[24]
Sparrow R (2015) Imposing genetic diversity. Am J Bioeth 15(6):2-10.
[25]
Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16:141-161.
[26]
Taylor C, Gutmann A (1992) Multiculturalism and "the politics of recognition". Princeton University Press, Princeton.
[27]
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013) World population ageing 2013. ST/ ESA/SER.A/348.
[28]
Vallor S (2011) Carebots and caregivers: sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. Philos Technol 24:251-268.
[29]
van Wynsberghe A (2013) Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci Eng Ethics 19(2):407-433.
[30]
Vincze M, Weiss A, Lammer L, Huber A, Gatterer G (2015) On the discrepancy between present service robots and older persons' needs. In: 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE RO-MAN 2014), August 25-29, 2014, Edinburgh. http://hobbit.acin.tuwien.ac.at/publications/hobbit_roman.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 15.
[31]
Winner L (1986) The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image AI & Society
AI & Society  Volume 31, Issue 4
November 2016
149 pages

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2016

Author Tags

  1. Aged care
  2. Ethics
  3. Robotics
  4. Robots
  5. Social robotics
  6. Society

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Affective Corners as a Problematic for Design InteractionsACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/359645212:4(1-9)Online publication date: 15-May-2023
  • (2023)Caring in the in-between: a proposal to introduce responsible AI and robotics to healthcareAI & Society10.1007/s00146-021-01330-w38:4(1685-1695)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
  • (2022)A critique of robotics in health careAI & Society10.1007/s00146-021-01206-z37:2(467-477)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Robotification & ethical cleansingAI & Society10.1007/s00146-021-01203-237:2(425-441)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
  • (2021)Dignity or degradation: The risks and realities of carebots in Quebec2021 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS)10.1109/ISTAS52410.2021.9629175(1-8)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Ethical concerns in rescue robotics: a scoping reviewEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-021-09603-023:4(863-875)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021
  • (2020)Hospital Beds, Robot Priests and Huggables:Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society10.1145/3419249.3420127(1-11)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2020
  • (2020)The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in CareProceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society10.1145/3419249.3420103(1-11)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2020
  • (2020)Sexual Robots: The Social-Relational Approach and the Concept of Subjective ReferenceHuman-Computer Interaction. Multimodal and Natural Interaction10.1007/978-3-030-49062-1_37(549-559)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2020

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media