Do Robots Care? Towards an Anthropocentric Framework in the Caring of Frail Individuals through Assistive Technologies

As a consequence of modern medicine and modern style of living, two demographic trends, namely longevity and a decline in fertility have greatly increased the aging population. The number of older persons aged 60 years or over is expected to be 1.4 billion by 2030 (World Population Data 2017). This demographic change combined with changes in family structure challenges the future of elderly care, and contributes to grounding a case towards the use of advanced robotics and AI to either integrate or radically replace human-provided services in this field. This paper introduces an anthropocentric framework – as defined by the European Commission in its 2018 Communication on AI – for the care of elderly individuals through assistive robotic technologies. Firstly, the concepts of care and cure are distinguished, followed by a critical analysis of the function of robots in the context of care. The paper continues with an analysis of the aforesaid technologies with the notion of care provided to highlight that machines have the potential to interact and simulate a relationship, but not to establish a real meaningful one with the user. User’s deception and deprivation of a meaningful care-relationship is discussed as a potential risk emerging from an incorrect use of technology in the treatment of fragile individuals, and the fundamental legal principle of human dignity is considered with respect to its potential application and impact on policies in this domain, as an objective criterion that poses limits also to the individual’s freedom of self-determination

Automated Care-Taking and the Constitutional Rights of the Patient in an Aging Population

Social Robots represent a broad spectrum ofAI-based robotic applications that could be largely deployed in the care of elderly and frail individuals, primarily to reduce associated welfare costs. Indeed, they could provide assistive (feeding, cleaning, moving),monitoring (health parameters and overall well-being of the user), and companionship (entertaining and interactingwith the user) services. This chapter questions whether all these uses are to be deemed licit, and pursuant to which criteria. To do so, it first describes the different kinds of robotic applications divided into categories pursuant to the functions they serve. Then it defines the right to carewithin the existing legal framework, in light of international conventions, constitutional principles, and national provisions. In so doing it shows howcare is kept distinct from mere cure, and entails addressing the overall well-being of patients, including their socialization, personal independence and dignity. The different technologies are then assessed. To do so, alternative ethical paradigms are considered, typically recalled in the bioethical debate revolving around the use and acceptability of advanced technologies. The analysis shows how a deontological approach is the only one that conforms to the current constitutional framework. Reference is made to the ethical and legal notion of human dignity as an external and objective criterion that limits freedom of self-determination, and prevents humans from being manipulated (in their emotions), instrumentalized and isolated. Technologies that could be deemed deceptive—inducing the delusional perception that the machine cares for the user—and whose primary purpose is to replace human relations and contact, should be deemed violating the fundamental rights to care and the dignity of the individuals being cared for. Instead, those technologies that favour physical and psychological independence should be not just welcomed but eventually supported through ad-hoc policy initiatives