Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer, 35 box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer, 35 box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Mar 17;27(2):17. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00296-8.
Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) are increasingly conceived as applicable tools to be used in aged care. However, the use carries many negative and positive connotations. Negative connotations come forth out of romanticized views of care practices, disregarding their already established technological nature. Positive connotations are formulated out of techno-deterministic views on SAR use, presenting it as an inevitable and necessary next step in technological development to guarantee aged care. Ethical guidance of SAR use inspired by negative connotations tends to be over-restrictive whereas positive connotations tend to provide over-permissive guidance. To avoid these extremes, we report on the development and content of 21 ethical orientations regarding SAR use in aged care. These orientations resulted from a multi-phased project, which consisted of empirical-ethical research focusing on older adults' intuitions regarding SAR use and philosophical-ethical research focusing on philosophical-ethical argumentations regarding SAR use. This project led to the Socio-historical contextualization of the ethics of SAR use, in which the ethical impact of SAR use is localized on three interrelated analysis levels: societal, organizational, and individual-relational. The 21 novel orientations regarding SAR use are structured according to these levels and further categorized into foundational and applied orientations. The first category leads to critical reflection on SAR use while the latter category inspires decision-making processes regarding this use. While going beyond the care-romantic and techno-deterministic gaze of SAR use in aged care, the described orientations balance themselves between their over-restrictiveness and over-permissiveness.
社交辅助机器人（SARs）越来越被认为是适用于老年护理的工具。然而，这种应用带来了许多积极和消极的含义。消极的含义源于对护理实践的浪漫化观点，忽略了它们已经确立的技术性质。积极的含义是基于对 SAR 使用的技术决定论观点形成的，将其视为技术发展的必然和必要的下一步，以保证老年护理。受消极含义启发的 SAR 使用的伦理指导往往过于严格，而积极的含义往往提供过于宽松的指导。为了避免这些极端情况，我们报告了 21 种关于在老年护理中使用 SAR 的伦理取向的发展和内容。这些取向是从一个多阶段的项目中产生的，该项目包括关注老年人对 SAR 使用的直觉的实证伦理研究和关注 SAR 使用的哲学伦理论证的哲学伦理研究。该项目导致了 SAR 使用的社会历史背景化，其中 SAR 使用的伦理影响在三个相互关联的分析层面上本地化：社会、组织和个体关系。这 21 种新颖的 SAR 使用取向是根据这些层面构建的，并进一步分为基础取向和应用取向。第一类导向对 SAR 使用进行批判性反思，而后者则启发了关于这种使用的决策过程。虽然超越了老年护理中对 SAR 使用的护理浪漫主义和技术决定论的观点，但所描述的取向在其过度严格性和过度宽松性之间取得了平衡。
