An old lady sits alone in her sheltered accommodation stroking her pet robot seal. She has not had any human visitors for days. A humanoid robot enters the room, delivers a tray of food, and leaves after attempting some conversation about the weather, and encouraging her to eat it all up. The old lady sighs, and reluctantly complies with the robot’s suggestions. When she finishes eating, she goes back to stroking the pet robot seal: “At least you give my life some meaning” she says, as the robot seal blinks at her with its big eyes, and makes seal-like sounds in response to her ministrations.
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between dignity and robot care for older people. It highlights the disquiet that is often expressed about failures to maintain the dignity of vulnerable older people, but points out some of the contradictory uses of the word ‘dignity’. Certain authors have resolved these contradictions by identifying different senses of dignity; contrasting the inviolable dignity inherent in human life to other forms of dignity which can be present to varying degrees. The capability approach (CA) is introduced as a different but tangible account of what it means to live a life worthy of human dignity. It is used here as a framework for the assessment of the possible effects of eldercare robots on human dignity. The CA enables the identification of circumstances in which robots could enhance dignity by expanding the set of capabilities that are accessible to frail older people. At the same time, it is also possible within its framework to identify ways in which robots could have a negative impact, by impeding the access of older people to essential capabilities. It is concluded that the CA has some advantages over other accounts of dignity, but that further work and empirical study is needed in order to adapt it to the particular circumstances and concerns of those in the latter part of their lives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A Care Quality Commission report (2012/13) found that ‘In around 90 % of cases, people were treated with dignity and respect and were receiving care treatment and support that met their needs and was safe.’, but that ‘in around 10 % of cases people received poor quality care’.
References
Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2010). Robot caregivers: Harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 277–288.
Bostrom, N. (2008) Dignity and enhancement. In A. Schulman, F. Daniel Davis, & D. C. Dennett, et al. (Eds.), Human dignity and bioethics: Essays commissioned by the president’s council on bioethics (pp. 173–207). Washington, DC.
Cayton, H. (2006). From childhood to childhood? Autonomy and dependence through the ages of life. In J. C. Hughes, S. J. Louw, & S. R. Sabat (Eds.), Dementia: Mind, meaning, and the person (pp. 277–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(2), 181–190.
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 (pp. 77–86). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 9789400738782.
Fratiglioni, L., Wang, H.-X., Ericsson, K., et al. (2000). Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study. Lancet, 355, 1315–1319.
Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept. British Medical Journal, 327, 1419–1420.
Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, K., & Thompson, G. (2013). Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: A literature review. Maturitas, 74(2013), 14–20.
Nordenfelt, L. (2003). Dignity of the elderly: An introduction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 6(2), 99–101.
Nordenfelt, L. (2004). The varieties of dignity. Health Care Analysis, 12(2), 69–81.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Belknap Press.
Parkinson, M. (2010). My year as dignity ambassador. http://www.dignityincare.org.uk.
Pinker, S. (2008). The stupidity of dignity. The New Republic.
Saczynski, J. S., Pfeifer, L. A., Masaki, K., Korf, E. S. C., Laurin, D., White, L., et al. (2006). The effect of social engagement on incident dementia: The Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(5), 433–440.
Schroeder, D. (2006). A child’s life or a “little bit of torture”—state-sanctioned violence and dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 15(2), 188–201.
Schroeder, D. (2008). Dignity—two riddles and four concepts. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 17(2), 230–238.
Schroeder, D. (2010). Dignity—one, two, three, four, five; still counting. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 19(1), 118–125.
Schroeder, D. (2012). Human rights and human dignity: An appeal to separate the conjoined twins. Ethical Theory Moral Practice, 15, 323–332.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2006). Artificial intelligence and natural magic. Artificial Intelligence Review, 25, 9–19.
Sharkey, N. E., & Sharkey, A. J. C. (2010). Living with robots: Ethical considerations for eldercare. In Y. Wilks (Ed.), Artificial companions in society: Scientific, economic, psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 245–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2011). Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 18(1), 32–38.
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012a). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40 (published online 2010).
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2012b). The eldercare factory. Gerontology, 58(3), 282–288.
Shibata, T. (2012). Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. Proceedings of IEEE, 100(8), 2527–2538.
Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16, 141–161.
Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347–362.
Vallor, S. (2011). Carebots and caregivers: Sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the 21st Century. Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 251–268.
Van Wynsberghe A. (2012) Designing care robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6.
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Sakamoto, K., & Tanie, K. (2004) Effects of robot assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. In Proceedings IEEE (pp. 1780–1788).
Wilson, R. S., Krueger, K. R., Arnold, S. E., Schneider, J. A., Kelly, J. F., Barnes, L. L., et al. (2007). Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 234–240.
Winner, S. (2007). Beam me inside, Scotty! Assisted Living Consult.
Wolff, J., & DeShalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharkey, A. Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16, 63–75 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9338-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9338-5