Ethical Dilemma in the Application of ASD Nursing Robots
This academic paper examines the ethical dilemmas surrounding the application of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) nursing robots, focusing on responsibility, patient morality, emotional deception, and privacy. The author argues that robots cannot fully replace physiotherapists and should remain in an auxiliary, supervised role. Complete substitution by nursing robots is currently found to be unfeasible due to safety, moral, and emotional risks.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, developers, and healthcare professionals interested in the ethical limits and human-robot dynamics of medical care assistants.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the ethical considerations of deploying nursing robots for autism spectrum disorder treatment, specifically examining the subjects of moral and legal responsibility, the impact on patient morality, emotional deception, privacy sensitivity, and the limits of technological substitution for human physiotherapists.
The text does not provide binding regulatory frameworks, legal enforcement mechanisms, or formal technical standards for medical robot manufacturing.
- Nursing robots lack moral agency and cannot be held legally or morally responsible for safety incidents during ASD treatment.
- Human physiotherapists must directly supervise robot-assisted treatments to prevent patient harm and maintain direct responsibility.
- Allowing vulnerable patients to form deep emotional attachments to emotionless machines risks causing emotional deception.
- Real-time monitoring and data recording are essential for patient safety, further necessitating human oversight rather than full robot autonomy.
1. Introduction 2. Analysis of the application status of ASD nursing robots from the perspective of machines 3. Analysis of the application status of ASD nursing robots from the perspective of patients 4. Substitutable boundaries of human beings
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Therefore, from the perspective of responsibility, in the process of treating ASD patients, robots cannot be given complete autonomy to completely replace physiotherapists.
2.1. Subject of responsibility
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
When patients recover and learn that their long -term dependent “partner” is just a nonexistent virtual machine, it is an emotional deception for ASD patients.
3.1. Emotional deception
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
4/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
If robots are in the auxiliary position; that is, if patients are treated by robots under the supervision of physiotherapists, all actions are appointed by the physiotherapists
2.2. Ethics
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
Privacy protection is a sensitive issue. Whether to protect the privacy of patients in the treatment process has been controversial.
3.2. Privacy sensitivity
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
first, when robots interact with autistic children, information is recorded and stored
3.2. Privacy sensitivity
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Taking the application of ASD nursing robot as an example, this paper analyzes the ethical problems in the application of ASD nursing robot from the perspective of subject of responsibility and morality
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23