1

Paola Torres
CST 300 Writing Lab
20 February 2021

Robots: Great Assistants or Bad Ideas?

Robots have been portrayed in the media as sentient beings that have the potential to

destroy humanity when integrated into society. Even though the media has sung its tale of

caution, robots are slowly becoming a part of society. Today’s robots range from those that

automate jobs, such as in assembly plants, to those that are built for the purpose of research. The

latest sector to consider employing robots is the care facility industry. The idea of employing

robots to care for the elderly has gained traction as a solution for the potential shortage of

caretakers.

People are living longer lives due to healthcare practices improving. As the older

population increases, it is projected that the number of employed caretakers will not be enough to

care for the increasing older generation (Walker, n.d.). This projected shortage of caretakers has

given rise to the concept of employing care robots in order to offset the imbalance. There are

currently a few robots that have been created for this purpose.

Care robots such as Zora and Stevie have been created for the purpose of caring for the

elderly in facility homes. Zora is a miniature robot built to assist with the mental, physical, and

social aspects of elderly care. Zora currently helps in a limited capacity, primarily with physical

recreation (Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S. & Kyrki, V., 2019). Stevie the robot was

created to help research the subject of care robots in eldelry care. Scientists observe Stevie’s

interactions with the elderly and how they respond to him. He is able to chat with the residents as

well as lead bingo and karaoke night (Purtill, 2019).

 2

Care robots have raised some concerns among a sector of the population. Stakeholder 1,

the opponents of care robots, opposes care robots because of the implications that robots will

have on the well being of the elderly. Stakeholder 1 uses claims of value to defend their position

on care robots. Claims of value aim to determine right from wrong by making a judgement on a

matter. In this situation, stakeholder 1 claims that care robots are unethical because they will

deprive the elderly from human emotional interaction.

Stakeholder 1 is concerned that care robots will provide emotionless care to a vulnerable

population. They believe that how you care for someone is just as important as the care provided

(Henwood, 2019). Since robots lack the ability to feel real emotions, they will not be able to

provide a true emotional connection with the elderly they are helping care for. Stakeholder 1

believes this is unethical because, in some cases, the human interaction the elderly receive from

their caretakers is the only human interaction that is available to them. Stakeholder 1 is

concerned that limiting or fully removing human caretakers will reduce the quality of care

provided to the elderly.

Stakeholder 1 also believes that care robots are unethical because robots can deceive the

elderly, specifically the care robots that look human-like (Chan Kok Yew, 2020). The concern

for deception is particularly higher amongst those with dementia. The nature of the robots’

program and features will cause some individuals to misunderstand that they are interacting with

a robot rather than a human. Stakeholder 1 believes this is a breach of trust (Dubljevic, V., Coin,

A. & Shipman, M., 2020).

There are also those that support the use of care robots. Stakeholder 2, the proponents of

care robots, views the implementation as a solution to the forecasted shortage of caretakers

employed in elderly care. Stakeholder 2 uses claims of policy to support their view. Claims of
 3

policy declare a present idea as the best way to solve a particular problem. In this case,

stakeholder 2 believes that care robots are the best solution to the lack of caretakers that will

continue to grow as the older population grows.

Stakeholder 2 claims that care robots will help the shortage of caretakers by

supplementing existing workers. Stevie the robot is capable of leading exercise sessions and

bingo and karaoke night. A caregiver at the home where Stevie is helping noted that with his

help during bingo, her time was freed up to attend the residents of the home. Previously, most of

her time and attention would be occupied by running the bingo program (Purtill, 2019).

Stakeholder 2 also claims that care robots have the potential to give more independence

to the elderly by allowing them to remain in their own home longer (Johansson-Pajala, R.,

Thommes, K., Hoppe, J., Tuisku, O., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., Melkas, H. & Gusstafson, C.,

2020). Doing so will benefit those in particular that cannot afford to be placed in a home early on

due to the cost associated with care facilities. Extended independence will benefit the elderly by

giving them a sense of pride and self esteem.

Stakeholder 2 also claims that care robots will help those with dementia remain in better

conditions because of the independence aforementioned. It has been noted that familiar

environments help maintain better cognitive health among dementia patients (Dubljevic, V.,

Coin, A. & Shipman, Matt, 2020). Keeping individuals with dementia in their own home as long

as possible will help their overall well being and health.

The two opposing stakeholders’ viewpoints bring the question of, should care robots be

allowed in eldery care? To gain a full understanding of the questions at hand, the physical and

emotional well being of the elderly while interacting with care robots has to be considered along
 4

with exploring the idea of helping the caretaker force through the use of care robots.

Understanding the implications of these points will offer a solution to the question.

Stakeholder 1 argues that care robots will negatively affect the elderly. Stakeholder 1

approaches care robots through a utilitarianism framework. The utilitarianism framework, which

was first used by Jeremy Bentham, takes into consideration how something in question affects

everyone involved and the magnitude of the effects. Utilitarianism decides what is a morally

correct approach by considering what will benefit the majority of a population the most. In the

case of care robots, those primarily involved are the elderly and the caretakers.

Stakeholder 1 argues that when it comes to the elderly, the use of care robots is unethical

because it will isolate the majority of them. Robots cannot provide emotional support like

humans can. Emotional care, and human interaction in general, is just as important as physical

care (Henwood, 2019). Therefore, employing care robots will diminish the care offered to the

majority of the elderly by removing the emotional care and connection that human caretakers are

capable of providing.

Stakeholder 1 argues that care robots will also negatively affect the majority of

caretakers. Caretakers have a lot of work on their hands. The number of elderly residents

oftentimes outnumber the available caretakers in homes by a high ratio. Current iterations of care

robots, such as Stevie, require a human handler to ensure that they will not accidentally harm any

of the residents (Purtill, 2019). Care robots will further divide the caretakers’ attention because

they will have to monitor the care robots as well as the residents. Care robots will negatively

affect the majority of care workers by impacting their duties. This inturn will also negatively

affect the elderly because the quality of care and attention they receive will be diminished.
 5

Stakeholder 1 believes care robots are unethical because it will affect the majority of the

elderly and caretakers alike. By keeping care robots from entering this sector, the elderly will

continue to receive well rounded care and the caretakers’ job will not be made more

unnecessarily difficult. By opposing care robots, stakeholder 1 gains quality care for the elderly

along with maintaining the quality of work for the caretakers.

Stakeholder 2 argues that the use of care robots will improve the quality of life and care

for the elderly. Stakeholder 2 approaches care robots through a cultural relativism framework.

Cultural relativism, which was first used by Franz Boas, bases the ethics of a situation on the

beliefs and cultural dynamics of a certain country or geographic area. The framework uses the

context of a culture to decide what is ethical. Through this lense, it is apparent that the concern

about care robots is societal. There are places in the world, such as Japan, that have successfully

integrated robots into their society (Lufkin, 2020).

Stakeholder 2 argues that care robots are not inherently unethical but rather that the

opinions surrounding them are largely dictated by cultural beliefs. For example, a survey was

conducted in Europe that inquired if robots should be used in elderly care. Sixty percent of

participants disagreed with the use of care robots (Wachsmuth, 2018). However, if that survey

was conducted in Japan, the results would be significantly different. This is due to the fact that

Japan has found a solution to its present problem through robots.

Japan is currently facing a situation that can be paralleled to the future shortage of

caretakers: a declining population. Due to Japan’s declining population, the elderly are

outnumbering those that can take care of them (Lufkin, 2020). As a result, Japan is using robots

to fill jobs in sectors that lack workers such as security and elderly care (Lufkin, 2020). Using

robots to fill open positions is seen as a positive. The sentiment resonates among workers in
 6

those sectors. For example, a caretaker suggested that the emerging technology of robots can

potentially attract new workers to the trade with the novelty it will bring to the job (Lufkin,

2020). Workers do not see the robots as competition but rather as a resource that will assist them

in their duties.

Stakeholder 2 argues that care robots are ethical and that by studying Japan’s practices it

will become apparent that robots can function in elderly care without major concerns. By

understanding the context surrounding care robots through a case study, both the elderly and

caretakers will gain a needed resource. By supporting the use of care robots, stakeholder 2 gains

future availability of caretakers for the growing elderly population as well as maintains job

quality for the human caretakers that remain in the field.

My position is that care robots will largely improve the quality of care for the elderly. My

viewpoint aligns with stakeholder 2 because I too believe that the hesitation towards care robots

is largely due to cultural beliefs. If this sentiment is overcome, it will become apparent that care

robots are a great resource to supplement a diminishing workforce. Afterall, if there are not

enough caretakers to provide care for the elderly, the quality of care will diminish by the simple

fact that there are just not enough caretakers available to care for the growing population.

I believe that care robots will work best alongside existing caretakers. Care robots will

allow caretakers to focus their attention on the more pressing tasks or patients that need the most

attention. While the human caretakers’ attention is occupied, the rest of the elderly will have a

resource that is readily available to them. Since the care robots will only be a supplement to

human caretakers, the elderly will still have the human interaction available to them from the

human caretakers.
 7

I also believe that care robots will bring a new take to elderly care in general as the

aforementioned Japanese caretaker pointed out. The novelty of care robots will serve as an extra

form of entertainment for the elderly while they lead workouts or talk with the residents. The

care robots might also make the human caretakers’ jobs a bit lighter by providing them some

entertainment as well during their busy day at work. The care robots will also help the human

caretakers by dividing their work tasks.

There is a debate about using care robots in elderly care. Stakeholder 1 opposes care

robots because they believe that care robots will deprive the elderly from quality care.

Stakeholder 2 thinks that care robots will be a good way to reinforce the impacted care

workforce. By analyzing their two arguments through the utilitarianism and cultural relativism

frameworks respectively, it can be seen that both sides have merit. However, care robots have a

real use case in elderly care. They will function best in working alongside existing caretakers.

Through this method, elderly care will improve with the extra available resource.
 8

References

Chan Kok Yew, G. (2020, May 23). Trust in and ethical design of carebots: The case for ethics

of care. ​NCBI.​ Retrieved from ​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245509/

Dubljevic, V., Coin, A. & Shipman, M. (2020, December 1). Tackling ethics concerns regarding

use of ‘carebots’ to assist older adults. ​NC State University News.​ Retrieved from

https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/12/ethics-carebots-older-adults/

Henwood, M. (2019, November 22). Why the idea of ‘care robots’ could be bad news for the

elderly. ​World Economic Forum. ​Retrieved from

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/care-robots-ai-4ir-elderly-social/

Johansson-Pajala, R., Thommes, K., Hoppe, J., Tuisku, O., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., Melkas,

H. & Gusstafson, C. (2020, January 21). Care robot orientation: What, who and how?

Potential users’ perceptions. ​Springer Link.​ Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-020-00619-y

Lufkin, B. (2020, February 6). What the world can learn from Japan’s robots. ​BBC.​ Retrieved

from

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200205-what-the-world-can-learn-from-japans-r

obots

Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., & Kyrki, V. (2019, December 4). Impacts of robot

implementation on care personnel and clients in elderly-care institutions. ​Science Direct.

Retrieved from ​https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505619300498

Purtill, C. (2019, October 4). Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A robot and a team of

Irish scientists walk into a senior living home. ​Time.​ Retrieved from

https://time.com/longform/senior-care-robot/
 9

Wachsmuth, I. (2018, April 3). Robots like me: Challenges and ethical issues in aged care.

frontiers in Psychology.​ Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5892289/

Walker, J. (n.d.). Does our future depend on elder care robots? ​Waypoint Robotics.​ Retrieved

from ​https://waypointrobotics.com/blog/elder-care-robots/