Cover not available

Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 18:2 (2017) ► pp.174–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The ethics of robotic caregivers

 | The George Washington University |
 | Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence |
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.2.02etz
As Artificial Intelligence technology seems poised for a major take-off and changing societal dynamics are creating a high demand for caregivers for elders, children, and those infirmed, robotic caregivers may well be used much more often. This article examines the ethical concerns raised by the use of AI caregivers and concludes that many of these concerns are avoided when AI caregivers operate as partners rather than substitutes. Furthermore, most of the remaining concerns are minor and are faced by human caregivers as well. Nonetheless, because AI caregivers’ systems are learning systems, an AI caregiver could stray from its initial guidelines. Therefore, subjecting AI caregivers to an AI-based oversight system is proposed to ensure that their actions remain both legal and ethical.
Article outline
  • 1.The demand for humanoid robots
  • 2.Challenges
  • 3.Introducing AI caregivers
  • 4.Substitute vs partner?
  • 5.Goal vs comparative evaluation
  • 6.Team work
  • 7.AI caregivers need supervision – like humans
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (37)
References
Al Jazeera. (2014). Robots for the Elderly. June 10. [URL]
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L.. (Eds.). (2011). Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohannon, J.. (2015). The synthetic therapist. Science, 349(6247), 250–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bostrom, N.. (2014). When machines outsmart humans. CNN, September 8. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Health care, capabilities, and AI Assistive Technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(2), 181–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DMello, A.. (2015). Rise of the humans: intelligence amplification will make us as smart as the Machines. The Conversation, October 12. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emspak, J.. (2016). How a machine learns prejudice. The Scientific American, December 29. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2016). “Artificial intelligence (AI).” Britannica Academic. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Web. Accessed 5 July 2016. [URL]
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O.. (2016a). Keeping AI legal. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (Forthcoming). [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2016b). Killer robots won’t doom humanity, but our fears of AI might. Quartz, May 24. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M.. (2011). Ethical principles for socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, Special issue on Roboethics, Veruggio, J. Solis and M. Van der loos, 18(1), 24–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, M., Dennis, L., & Webster, M.. (2013). Verifying autonomous systems. Communications of the ACM, 56(9), 84–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawking, S., Tegmark, M., Wilczek, F., & Russell, S.. (2014). Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines. The Huffington Post. June 19. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCargar, B.. (2005). Watts, heat and light: Measuring the heat output of different lamps. January, [URL]
Markoff, J.. (2015). Machines of loving grace: The quest for common ground between humans and robots (1st ed.). New York, NY: ECCO, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matarić, M. J., Eriksson, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., & Winstein, C. J.. (2007). Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 4(1), 5–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K.. (2014). Big data: A Revelution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: John Murray Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster.com. Humanoid. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. Accessed 6 June 2016.
. Robot. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. Accessed 6 June 2016.
Nakajima, H., Yamada, R., Brave, S., Morishima, Y., Nass, C., & Kawaji, S.. (2003). The functionality of human-machine collaboration systems – Mind model and social behavior. SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 31, 2381–2387.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Price, R.. (2016). Microsoft is deleting its AI chatbot’s incredibly racist tweets. Business Insider, March 24. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reese, H.. (2016). Why Microsoft’s Tay AI Bot went wrong. Tech Republic, March 24. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rheingold. H.. (1985). Tools for thought: The history and future of mind-expanding technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenberg, T.. (2015). Depressed? Try therapy without the therapist. The New York Times, June 19. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, N.. (2008). The ethical Frontiers of Robotics. Science, 3221, 1800–1801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A.. (2006). Artificial Intelligence and natural magic. Artificial Intelligence Review, 251, 9–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 161–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N.. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 141, 27–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shea, S.. (2006). Improving medication adherence: How to talk with patients about their medications. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparrow, R.. (2002). The March of Robot Dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 41, 305–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L.. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullins, J. P.. (2011). When is a robot a moral agent? In M. Anderson & S. L. Anderson (Eds), Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, S.. (2010). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). The tethered self: Technology reinvents intimacy and solitude. Continuing Higher Education Review, 751, 28–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive data. Science and Engineering Ethics, 191, 407–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wallach, W., & Allen, A.. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winfield, A. F., Blum, C., & Liu, W.. (2014). Towards an ethical robot: Internal models, consequences and ethical action selection. In Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (pp. 85–96). Springer International Publishing.
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

Ferdynus, Marcin Paweł
2026. Why Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace the Nurse in Healthcare: A (Neo)Thomistic Approach. Nursing Philosophy 27:1 DOI logo
Akyazı, Kadem Gürkan & Hatice Kumcağız
2025. YAŞLI BAKIMI PROGRAMI ÖĞRENCİLERİNDE ROBOTLARA KARŞI TUTUM VE ROBOT KAYGISI. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi 25:68 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
Cesário, Larissa C, Priscila Barbosa, Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel & Glauco H.S. Mendes
2025. Service robots in caring for older adults: Uncovering the current conceptual and intellectual structures and future research agenda. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 131 ► pp. 105755 ff. DOI logo
Kralj, Danijela
2024. Green and Digital Transition – Challenge or Opportunity, ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Nortje, Nico, Amitabha Palmer, Gavin Enck, Christopher Frank Masciari, Joyce Neumann & Colleen Mary Gallagher
2024. Evolving Landscape of Ethics in Oncology: A Journey Through the Past, Present, and Future. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book 44:3 DOI logo
Palmer, Amitabha & David Schwan
2024. More Process, Less Principles: The Ethics of Deploying AI and Robotics in Medicine. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 33:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Palmer, Amitabha & David Schwan
2025. Advanced Technologies in Medicine: Safeguarding Physician Skill, Knowledge, and Character in the AI-Enhanced Clinic. In Ethics and Medical Technology [The International Library of Bioethics, 113], ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Papadopoulos, Irena & Runa Lazzarino
2024. Developing, delivering, and evaluating an online course on socially assistive robots in culturally competent and compassionate healthcare: A sequential multiphase, mixed-method study. DIGITAL HEALTH 10 DOI logo
Ergin, Eda, Duygu Karaarslan, Seda Şahan & Şebnem Çınar Yücel
2022. Artificial intelligence and robot nurses: From nurse managers' perspective: A descriptive cross‐sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management 30:8 ► pp. 3853 ff. DOI logo
Carroll, Karen
2021. Robotics: Considerations for Practice. Nursing Science Quarterly 34:3 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Tan, Si Ying, Araz Taeihagh & Abhas Tripathi
2021. Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 167 ► pp. 120686 ff. DOI logo
Stokes, Felicia & Amitabha Palmer
2020. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Nursing: Ethics of Caring as a Guide to Dividing Tasks Between AI and Humans. Nursing Philosophy 21:4 DOI logo
Turja, Tuuli, Sakari Taipale, Markus Kaakinen & Atte Oksanen
2020. Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants. International Journal of Social Robotics 12:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Gracia, Luis, J. Ernesto Solanes, Pau Muñoz-Benavent, Jaime Valls Miro, Carlos Perez-Vidal & Josep Tornero
2019. Human-robot collaboration for surface treatment tasks. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:1 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Jaakola, Joni & Jukka Vuorinen
2019. Gifts and Parasites. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Social Media, Games and Assistive Environments [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11593], ► pp. 336 ff. DOI logo
Li, Wentao & Gregor Wolbring
2019. Analysis of engagement between ethics and return-to-work discourses in respective academic literature. Work 64:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Lin & Shejiao Ding
2019. Ethics and risks between human and robotic interaction. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:1 ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Vakkuri, Ville & Pekka Abrahamsson
2018. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2025. A Generational Review of Human Robot Interaction: The Evolution and Development of Socially Autonomous Robots. Journal of Machine and Computing ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue