Design of Robotic Care: Ethical Implications of a Multi-Actor Perspective
This book chapter presents an empirical study investigating the social and ethical ramifications of robotic elderly care from the perspective of both care recipients and care providers. Through generative phenomenographic interviews with 36 actors, including older adults and informal and formal caregivers, the study uncovers expectations, latent fears, and ethical concerns surrounding care robots. The findings highlight a multi-actor perspective captured through thematic maps on assistance, monitoring, and companionship, showing that while robots could improve well-being, caregivers remain somewhat reluctant to accept them as co-providers.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, designers, and practitioners interested in the ethical and social implications of deploying care robots for older adults.
What the document contains
The document covers an empirical study on the social and ethical ramifications of robotic elderly care from the perspectives of older adults, informal caregivers, and formal caregivers. It addresses three main thematic areas: assistance, monitoring, and companionship.
The text does not provide legally binding regulatory frameworks, technical standards, or specific governance policies for the deployment of care robots.
- Ethically-sound robotic design is timely and relevant as service robots take on social roles for vulnerable populations like older adults.
- An empirical study involving 36 actors utilized generative phenomenographic interviews and visualizations to uncover expectations and concerns.
- A multi-actor perspective captures ethical implications across three thematic maps: assistance, monitoring, and companionship.
- While social robots can improve well-being through service and reliability, they also raise concerns regarding a decline in agency, loss of privacy, and delusion.
- Formal caregivers display a latent reluctance to accept robots as close care co-providers despite expressing positive views in interviews.
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
2/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
However, the visualizations of future robotic care uncovered informants’ additional latent fears, in addition to ethical concerns found (e.g., decline in agency, loss of privacy, delusion).
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
2/5Protection of personal data and private life
However, the visualizations of future robotic care uncovered informants’ additional latent fears, in addition to ethical concerns found (e.g., decline in agency, loss of privacy, delusion).
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
This chapter presents an empirical study investigating social and ethical ramifications of robotic elderly care from the perspective of those receiving and those providing care.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23