Objectives: The aim of this review was to gain a better understanding of how older adults experience, perceive, think, and feel about the use of socially assistive robots (SARs) in aged care settings. Method: We conducted a literature search for studies that used a qualitative or a mixed-method approach having a significant qualitative element. Pubmed, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were queried. Candidate articles published in journals and conference proceedings were considered for review. Two independent reviewers assessed the included studies for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program, after which data on subjects’ self-reported opinions and perceptions were extracted and synthesized using thematic analyses. Results: Seventeen studies producing 23 publications were included. Based on the opinions of older adults, four themes emerged in relation to the use of SARS: (1) roles of a SAR; (2) interaction between the older adult and the SAR, which could be further subdivided into (a) the technical aspect of the interaction and (b) the human aspect of the interaction; (3) appearance of the SAR; and (4) normative/ethical issues regarding the use of SARs in aged care. Conclusions: Older adults have clear positive and negative opinions about different aspects of SARs in aged care. Nonetheless, some opinions can be ambiguous and need more attention if SARs are to be considered for use in aged care. Understanding older adults’ lived experiences with SARs creates the possibility of using an approach that embeds technological innovation into the care practice itself.

Objectives: Socially assistive robots (SARs) need to be studied from older adults’ perspective, given their predicted future ubiquity in aged-care settings. Current ethical discourses on SARs in aged care are uninformed by primary stakeholders’ ethical perceptions. This study reports on what community-dwelling older adults in Flanders, Belgium, perceive as ethical issues of SARs in aged care. Methods: Constructivist grounded theory guided the study of 9 focus groups of 59 community-dwelling older adults (70+ years) in Flanders, Belgium. An open-ended topic guide and a modified Alice Cares documentary focused discussions. The Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) guided data analysis. Results: Data revealed older adults’ multidimensional perceptions on the ethics of SARs which were structured along three sections: (a) SARs as components of a techno-societal evolution, (b) SARs’ embeddedness in aged-care dynamics, (c) SARs as embodiments of ethical considerations. Discussion: Perceptions sociohistorically contextualize the ethics of SAR use by older adults’ views on societal, organizational, and relational contexts in which aged care takes place. These contexts need to inform the ethical criteria for the design, development, and use of SARs. Focusing on older adults’ ethical perceptions creates “normativity in place,” viewing participants as moral subjects.

‘Sustainable AI’ sets itself apart from other AI ethics frameworks by its inherent regard for the ecological costs of AI, a concern that has so far been woefully overlooked in the policy space. Recently, two German-based research and advocacy institutions have published a joint report on Sustainability Criteria for Artificial Intelligence. This is, to our knowledge, the first AI ethics document in the policy space that puts sustainability at the center of its considerations. We take this as an opportunity to highlight the foundational problems we see in current debates about AI ethics guidelines. Although we do believe the concept of sustainability has the potential to introduce a paradigm shift, we question whether the suggestions and conceptual grounding found in this report have the strength to usher it in. We show this by presenting this new report as an example of current approaches to AI ethics and identify the problems of this approach, which we will describe as ‘checklist ethics’ and ‘ethics of carefulness’. We argue to opt for an ‘ethics of desirability’ approach. This can be completed, we suggest, by reconceptualizing sustainability as a property of complex systems. Finally, we offer a set of indications for further research.

Different embodiments of technology permeate all layers of public and private domains in society. In the public domain of aged care, attention is increasingly focused on the use of socially assistive robots (SARs) supporting caregivers and older adults to guarantee that older adults receive care. The introduction of SARs in aged-care contexts is joint by intensive empirical and philosophical research. Although these efforts merit praise, current empirical and philosophical research are still too far separated. Strengthening the connection between these two fields is crucial to have a full understanding of the ethical impact of these technological artefacts. To bridge this gap, we propose a philosophical-ethical framework for SAR use, one that is grounded in the dialogue between empirical-ethical knowledge about and philosophical-ethical reflection on SAR use. We highlight the importance of considering the intuitions of older adults and their caregivers in this framework. Grounding philosophical-ethical reflection in these intuitions opens the ethics of SAR use in aged care to its own socio-historical contextualisation. Referring to the work of Margaret Urban Walker, Joan Tronto and Andrew Feenberg, it is argued that this socio-historical contextualisation of the ethics of SAR use already has strong philosophical underpinnings. Moreover, this contextualisation enables us to formulate a rudimentary decision-making process about SAR use in aged care which rests on three pillars: (1) stakeholders’ intuitions about SAR use as sources of knowledge; (2) interpretative dialogues as democratic spaces to discuss the ethics of SAR use; (3) the concretisation of ethics in SAR use.