Ethical,Legal,and Societal Dimensions of AI-Driven Social Robots in Elderly Healthcare

Abstract

AI-driven social robots in elderly healthcare are one of the most important applications to increase the quality of life by promoting activities of daily living, exercises to improve memory and cognitive functioning. On the other hand, these new levels of innovation also raise troubling questions, including those related to ethics, legal compliance, and societal issues with a particular focus around privacy and data security. This paper discusses these dimensions from the point of view of human-robot interaction (HRI) augmented by AI. We review and analyze the literature, regulations, and standards to identify gaps where pragmatic improvements can be instituted, offering guidelines for a responsible ethical implementation of AI-driven social robots assisting the elderly. Additionally, the ethical implications of anthropomorphism, where robots are endowed with human-like traits, are examined, particularly in terms of their emotional impact on users. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape and identify areas for improvement, ensuring that the deployment of social robots in elderly care respects ethical standards and complies with regulatory requirements. By addressing these challenges, we can fulfil the positive potential of social robots in improving the quality of life for the elderly.

Keywords

Socially assistive robots (SARs)eldercare ethical considerations privacy and data security

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abma

Bendien

(2019). Autonomy in old age. Family & Law, 5, 102.

(2019). High-level expert group on artificial intelligence. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, 6.

Arnold

Scheutz

(2017, March). Beyond moral dilemmas: Exploring the ethical landscape in HRI. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 445–452).

Bisconti

Carnevale

(2021). Alienation and recognition: The

Δ

phenomenology of human-social robot interactions (HSRI). Techné, 1(1).

Bradwell

H. L.

Winnington

Thill

Jones

R. B.

(2020). Ethical perceptions towards real-world use of companion robots with older people and people with dementia: Survey opinions among younger adults. BMC Geriatrics, 20, 1–10.

Breazeal

C. L.

Ostrowski

A. K.

Singh

Park

H. W.

(2019). Designing social robots for older adults. National Academy of Engineering Bridge, 49, 22–31.

Chatterjee

Chaudhuri

Vrontis

(2024). Usage intention of social robots for domestic purpose: From security, privacy, and legal perspectives. Information Systems Frontiers, 26, 1–16.

Coeckelbergh

(2011). You, robot: On the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI & society, 26, 61–69.

De Carolis

Ferilli

Macchiarulo

(2022, July). Ambient Assisted Living and Social Robots: Towards Learning Relations between User’s Daily Routines and Mood. In Adjunct proceedings of the 30th ACM conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization (pp. 123–129).

10.

Draper

Sorell

(2017). Ethical values and social care robots for older people: An international qualitative study. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(1), 49–68.

11.

Esterwood

Robert

L. P.

(2021). A systematic review of human and robot personality in health care human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 306.

12.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (n.d.). Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the council. https://osha.europa.eu/it/legislation/directives/directive-2006-42-ec-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council

13.

European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021)0206 - C9-0146/2021 - 2021/0106(COD)).

14.

European Commission. (n.d.). Practical organizational framework for AI accountability. Futurium. https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/european-ai-alliance/best-practices/practical-organizational-framework-ai-accountability

15.

European Parliament. (2023). Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14 June 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021)0206 – C9-0146/2021 – 2021/0106(COD)).

16.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2021). Regulation on harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021) 206 final). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex

17.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

18.

European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union. Article 7, Regulation (EU) 2016/679. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

19.

Hakli

Mäkelä

Seibt

(Eds.). (2023). Social robots in social institutions: Proceedings of robophilosophy 2022 (Vol. 366). IOS Press.

20.

Heuer

Schiering

Gerndt

(2019). Privacy-centered design for social robots. Interaction Studies, 20(3), 509–529.

21.

Hung

Mann

Perry

Berndt

Wong

(2022). Technological risks and ethical implications of using robots in long-term care. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 9, 20556683221106917.

22.

Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence. (n.d.). Accountability framework consultation. Technical University of Munich. https://www.ieai.sot.tum.de/accountability-framework-consultation/

23.

Körtner

(2016). Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 49(4), 303–307.

24.

Lee

H. R.

Šabanović

Chang

W. L.

Nagata

Piatt

Bennett

Hakken

(YEAR2017, March). Steps toward participatory design of social robots: Mutual learning with older adults with depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 244–253).

25.

Lutz

Schöttler

Hoffmann

C. P.

(2019). The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(3), 412–434.

26.

Lutz

Tamò-Larrieux

(2021). Do privacy concerns about social robots affect use intentions? Evidence from an experimental vignette study. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 627958.

27.

Madiega

(2021). Artificial intelligence act. European Parliament: European Parliamentary Research Service.

28.

Ostrowski

A. K.

Breazeal

Park

H. W.

(2022, March). Mixed-method long-term robot usage: Older adults’ lived experience of social robots. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 33–42). IEEE.

29.

Pirhonen

Melkas

Laitinen

Pekkarinen

(2020). Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—A future-oriented study. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(2), 151–162.

30.

Radic

Vosen

Kilz

(2023, December). Ethical, Legal, and Social Requirements for Assistance Robots in Healthcare. In International conference on social robotics (pp. 49–58). Springer Nature Singapore.

31.

Ragno

Borboni

Vannetti

Amici

Cusano

(2023). Application of social robots in healthcare: Review on characteristics, requirements, technical solutions. Sensors, 23(15), 6820.

32.

Seibt

(2017). Towards an ontology of simulated social interaction: Varieties of the “As I” for robots and humans. In Sociality and normativity for robots: Philosophical inquiries into human-robot interactions (pp. 11–39). Springer International Publishing.

33.

Sharkey

(2014). Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics and Information Technology, 16, 63–75.

34.

Sharkey

(2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 27–40.

35.

Soares

Piçarra

Giger

J. C.

Oliveira

Arriaga

(2023). Ethics 4.0: Ethical dilemmas in healthcare mediated by social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(5), 807–823.

36.

Søraa

R. A.

Tøndel

Kharas

M. W.

Serrano

J. A.

(2023). What do older adults want from social robots? A qualitative research approach to human-robot interaction (HRI) studies. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(3), 411–424.

37.

Sorell

Draper

(2014). Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology, 16, 183–195.

38.

Standard ISO 13482 – Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for personal care robots.

39.

Thunberg

Arnelid

Ziemke

. (2022, December). Older adults’ perception of the Furhat robot. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on human-agent interaction (pp. 4–12).

40.

UNESCO. (2021a). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

41.

UNESCO. (2021b). AI ethics: Another step closer to the adoption of UNESCO’s recommendation. https://en.unesco.org/news/ai-ethics-another-stepcloser-adoption-unescos-recommendation-0

42.

World Health Organization. (2021). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341996

43.

Yuan

Coghlan

Lederman

Waycott

(2022). Social robots in aged care: Care staff experiences and perspectives on robot benefits and challenges. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1–23.