Ethical perceptions towards real-world use of companion robots with older people and people with dementia: survey opinions among younger adults

Abstract

Background Use of companion robots may reduce older people’s depression, loneliness and agitation. This benefit has to be contrasted against possible ethical concerns raised by philosophers in the field around issues such as deceit, infantilisation, reduced human contact and accountability. Research directly assessing prevalence of such concerns among relevant stakeholders, however, remains limited, even though their views clearly have relevance in the debate. For example, any discrepancies between ethicists and stakeholders might in itself be a relevant ethical consideration while concerns perceived by stakeholders might identify immediate barriers to successful implementation. Methods We surveyed 67 younger adults after they had live interactions with companion robot pets while attending an exhibition on intimacy, including the context of intimacy for older people. We asked about their perceptions of ethical issues. Participants generally had older family members, some with dementia. Results Most participants (40/67, 60%) reported having no ethical concerns towards companion robot use when surveyed with an open question. Twenty (30%) had some concern, the most common being reduced human contact (10%), followed by deception (6%). However, when choosing from a list, the issue perceived as most concerning was equality of access to devices based on socioeconomic factors (m = 4.72 on a scale 1–7), exceeding more commonly hypothesized issues such as infantilising (m = 3.45), and deception (m = 3.44). The lowest-scoring issues were potential for injury or harm (m = 2.38) and privacy concerns (m = 2.17). Over half (39/67 (58%)) would have bought a device for an older relative. Cost was a common reason for choosing not to purchase a device. Conclusions Although a relatively small study, we demonstrated discrepancies between ethical concerns raised in the philosophical literature and those likely to make the decision to buy a companion robot. Such discrepancies, between philosophers and ‘end-users’ in care of older people, and in methods of ascertainment, are worthy of further empirical research and discussion. Our participants were more concerned about economic issues and equality of access, an important consideration for those involved with care of older people. On the other hand the concerns proposed by ethicists seem unlikely to be a barrier to use of companion robots.

Companion robots for older adults: Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis approach

“…Until recently, companion robots, including robopets, have been prohibitively expensive [ 54 ]. The cost was a common reason for choosing not to purchase a device [ 60 ]. A new wave of cheaper robopets or low-cost telepresence robots may facilitate their continuous use [ 6 , 8 , 17 , 18 , 32 , 43 ].…”

Can a humanoid social robot stimulate the interactivity of cognitively impaired elderly? A thorough study based on computer vision methods

“…Monitoring and managing emergencies and helping with robotic support have been widely accepted [88,89], whereas tasks involving the direct interaction between a person and a robot are not yet recognised.…”

The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care

“…Robots in care has garnered attention and some commercial success over time, partly because of certain demographic developments observed in modern societies [ 6 , 7 ]. For example, people grow older, and many of the elderly face challenges such as dementia and a general need for care [ 1 ].…”

“…I consider the type of robots discussed by Sharkey and Sharkey [ 21 ] and Bradwell et al [ 7 ], which provides companionship in addition to basic cognitive assistance . Included in the analysis are current or near-future social robots, and their intelligence is as a consequence limited.…”

“…Carers and relatives are also potential stakeholders worthy of consideration, and research shows that they tend to see therapy with dolls, for example, as ‘demeaning, patronizing and inappropriate’ [ 49 , 50 ]. However, studies show that other relevant stakeholders (children and young adults considering the use of robots in care, and specifically in the context of elderly family members), have relatively few qualms about using companion robots in care [ 7 , 51 ]. In a scoping review of research related to the use of PARO in care, Hung, et al [ 2 ] argue that the literature contains a gap with regard to user (clinicians, policy-makers, families) and patient perspectives on the use of social robots in care.…”