Search

Social robots are increasingly being deployed to address social isolation and loneliness, particularly among older adults. Clips on social media attest that individuals availing themselves of this option are pleased with their robot companions. Yet, some people find the use of social robots to meet fundamental human emotional needs disturbing. This article clarifies and critically evaluates this response. It sets forth a framework for loneliness, which characterizes one kind of loneliness as involving an affective experience of lacking human relations that provide certain social goods. Next, the article discusses social robots and critically reviews the literature on the ethics of using them in light of this loneliness characterization. Third, we present a normative argument connecting the philosophical critique of loneliness-as-absence with the design and deployment of social robots. Finally, we draw out the implications of our analysis for public health and for interrogating the aims of commercial companies who make social robots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary focuses on 12 narratives written by caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's Disease and other types of dementia. While each narrative is distinctive and particular telling, common themes woven throughout the narratives include: embarking on a journey; I changed and they changed; feelings elicited; the hardest and best parts; understandings and acceptance; intersections; and what the future holds. This commentary shares these common themes and how they play out in the lives of people caring for loved ones with dementia. The last section connects the narrative themes to bioethical inquiry, with a focus on discerning moral boundaries. The boundaries touched on relate to justice within families, caregiver self-respect, and the persistence of persons and personal relationships over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two recent policy statements by major providers of critical care have rejected the concept and language of "medical futility," on the ground that there is no universal consensus on a definition. They recommend using "potentially inappropriate" or "inappropriate" instead. We argue that their proposed terms are vague-- even misleading--in the ICU setting, where serious life-and-death decisions are made. Whatever specific meaning the exclusive world of critical caie might wish to give to the word inappropriate, in the lay world the term is so broad it trivializes the activity. We also point out that there is no universal consensus on the definition of death, the right to abortion, or the right to refuse blood products, yet medicine carries on. One advantage of the term "medical futility" is that it confirms unambiguously that human beings are mortal, and medicine's powers are limited. It leads more naturally to integrating palliative and comfort care into critical care decision-making and encourages health providers to think more deeply about their role in the inevitable ending of their patients' lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]