Ethical Challenges of Assistive Robotics in the Elderly Care: Review and Reflection
This chapter examines the ethical challenges and impacts of assistive robotics in elderly care, specifically focusing on the RoPHa research project and utilizing the MEESTAR model for evaluation. It maps the ethical implications of proposed robotic care applications across individual, organizational, and societal perspectives into seven moral dimensions such as autonomy, justice, privacy, and safety. The text discusses the boundaries of human-machine interaction, emphasizing that technical assistance should not fully replace interpersonal relationships or human care.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, developers, and practitioners in healthcare robotics who need to understand the ethical considerations and evaluation frameworks for deploying assistive technologies in eldercare.
What the document contains
The document addresses the ethical evaluation of assistive robotic systems designed for elderly care, focusing on food consumption assistance, safety risks, privacy concerns, autonomy, and the social implications of human-machine interaction.
It does not provide binding legal regulations, formal legislative mandates, or enforceable compliance mechanisms regarding the deployment of care robots.
- Assistive robotics in elderly care present profound ethical implications across individual, organizational, and societal levels.
- The MEESTAR model provides a structured framework to evaluate the ethical dimensions of socio-technical arrangements in healthcare.
- Technical assistance systems should remain functionally bounded and avoid simulating human social or communicative relationships to prevent undue user dependency.
- Ensuring user autonomy, data security, transparent operation, and technical safety are critical prerequisites for deploying care robots.
· 7.1 Introduction · 7.2 Methodology · 7.3 Results · 7.4 Discussion · 7.5 Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
rating the system, therefore as ethically extremely sensitive. Hence, relating the ethical principle of safety with the topic of data security.
7.3 Results
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Concerns were raised over possible financial criteria that would either exclude people from using the system or determine which type of assistance the user should receive
7.3 Results
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
IL associated care mainly with the implications of assistive robotic care on older people’s dignity.
7.3 Results
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
there was a widespread agreement that the technical system should not be sold to vulnerable groups as a stand-alone, “unattended” system, as constant and competent monitoring and assessment were necessary
7.4 Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
Privacy was associated by all participants, mainly with data security, including the possibility of misusing the technology for the surveillance of users and employers
7.3 Results
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24