Today, many elderly either live alone, if they are capable, or are sent to live in a retirement house. Their children grow up and often become too busy to take care of them. Consequently, many elderly face depression or severe health problems that come purely from being abandoned by their families and are left to live a life of solitude. This is where robots or personal aids come into play. They can make up for the lack of company by constantly being at the elder’s side and looking after things around the house. The goal is to make robots that have capabilities that go beyond what pets can do in that they can not only provide companionship, but can also take care of the elderly. The stakeholders include: the elderly, their family members, the companies inventing/manufacturing these robots, and the retirement homes.
The utility test checks how well these robots will maximize everyone’s benefits. In this case, everyone definitely has something to gain. The companies that manufacture such robots now have enough demand to create a market to cater to, in which the elderly receive aid and companionship from the robots, the families do not have to worry about their elderly parents/grandparents as much, and the nursing homes can now provide their residents with better services since the robots would replace their workers, freeing up funds that would go to wages. Japan in particular is also currently facing the issue of a growing elderly population– about 20% of the population to be exact. (http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-developing-carebots-for-elderly-care-2015-11). The country faces a shortage of caretakers, so it has turned to these care robots as the solution to its problems. The downside mainly applies to the elderly who are not as inclined to be cared for by robots. Some of them may find all the sensors (to check their vitals) to be a restriction of their independence. Even though there is the possibility of the patient having a bad experience with a care robot, there is just as much opportunity of that happening with an actual human caretaker. The caretaker could be bad at their job resulting in a bad experience, so switching out the caretaker with a robot kind of cancels out this con as well! Computers can be more precise than a human in checking the patient’s vitals, but there is the chance for possible errors/bugs that cause a mistake which cancels out robot and human error.
The justice test checks whether robots distribute a fair amount of benefits and burdens. We say yes because every solution will have pros and cons and in this situation they balance out pretty evenly. As benefits, there are the elderly who now have someone to look after them, the companies who now have a market for the robots, and the families who have a responsibility taken off their shoulders. Furthermore, the nursing homes will have more funds which they can put into other aspects of the home such as the food and room quality. Enhancing these aspects will benefit the residents of the retirement house. On the other hand, there may be elders who do not like the constant monitoring of their actions. So the sensors and audio recording that comes with some care robots would become an issue since the patient would feel as if their privacy was being breached. Also, the high cost of maintaining such monitoring systems or purchasing robotic assistants would also be a burden to a senior citizen living on retirement savings. They might even need their families to contribute some funds which would extend the burden to them as well. Even though the robots can replace human caretakers, we should take into account the possibility of bugs/errors causing the robot to malfunction, therefore putting the patient in a dangerous situation.
The virtue test checks whether the robots will properly represent the companies that produce them. We say that they do. For example, IBM does not have an official mission statement, but their values translate into the following: dedication to every client’s success, Innovation that matters- for our company and for the world, and trust and personal responsibility in all relationships (https://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/mission-statements/ibm-mission-statement.html) . This indicates their responsibility to give back to society through their dedication to providing aids for the elderly. IBM developed MERA with a series of sensors that will allow it to detect any sudden changes in the house. For instance, it can monitor the stove burners or whether the front door is open or closed (http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-pepper-robot-elder-care-2016-12). This shows how these companies can directly have an impact in the lives of these patients.
There are many economic, political, and social constraints that would apply to a developed market for care robots. The main economic issue with this would be affordability for the target market group. This group includes the elderly, their families, and nurseries and retirement homes. Just like most new inventions, the robots will be very expensive when they reach the market. Not everyone will have equal access to the robots, so they will become more of a luxury. These robots would take away jobs from people who visit senior citizens at their homes to take care of them. It would also reduce the amount of elderly sent to nurseries or retirement homes for care, therefore sending such institutions out of business as well. This situation would be considered a social and economic constraint. Considering the elderly, many of them will be against the robots for fear of them. Others will not like the fact that the constant monitoring from the robots will restrict their freedom. This will create social divisions and general talk amongst people may lead some people towards/away from purchasing a care robot. In terms of political constraints, there are the issues of privacy and liability. Many of these care robots are connected to multiple sensors and audio recorders to check on the patient. This means the companies would have to make sure their systems are guarded against hackers. Should someone hack the system, they could breach the patient’s privacy by having access to their audio files. Furthermore, for robots that can actually help with moving the patients by physically lifting them, there is the possibility of having a malfunction. Such bugs could lead to an accident, and then it would become a legal battle between the company and patient/patient’s family to decide who will take responsibility for the incident. Many companies may try to find a loophole so that they do not have to compensate the family for such accidents, and this would force many families to spend time battling in the courts.
Our team discussed all the issues that arise from using elderly care robots, and we came up with the following solutions. First, we proposed some laws that would protect the patients and their families from being deceived by companies that try to get away with any errors in the robot that result in harm of the patient. There should be some type of waiver or contract that sets the guidelines for what falls under the company’s responsibility versus that of the family. If the robot malfunctions, there should be an analysis of what went wrong, a report written up, and then a verdict that points to the party that is responsible. This will hopefully guarantee that any mistake on the side of the robotics company will result in financially compensating the family for medical costs associated with treating the patient after such an accident. Second, we believe that there can be more efforts made in humanizing the robots in order to help certain patients who may fear or dislike the robots. By creating a bank of humans emotions that the robot can work from, we can make sure the robot knows how to smile, hug, and hold pleasant conversations with the patients. Working on the robot’s “personality” can have a large impact on how the elderly view the robots, despite whatever their previous qualms. To take this solution a step further, we propose having settings that patients can play with. They should be limited to very basic functions of the robot, such as how often it is allowed to check in with the patient. If the patient does not want to be constantly bothered, they can set it to two times a day versus three. The company can choose to make the settings only changed when they are called in to avoid any legal complications should something go wrong, but making the robot’s settings cater to the patient can help change their opinion of the robot. It is more of something they can work with as opposed to a restriction of their freedom. Third, we propose encouraging retirement homes to take on some care robots as assistants to the human caretakers. Some elderly may prefer human interaction, but the robots can go around doing trivial tasks such as delivering medicines and food. Not all the employees will lose their jobs as well. Finally, we propose a care robot that can be put on a timeshare, similar to how the bicycle-sharing system works in New York City. This would make the robots more affordable for families since they would have the robot for a few hours based on their needs. This is more specific to elderly who need someone to watch them temporarily. Those who live alone and need a constant companion should not be encouraged to seek this option.