Europe will need innovative solutions to manage its ageing societies. While healthcare robots could help, paternalistic policy-making risks banning them on ethical grounds. Instead of debating the ethics of healthcare robots, we should instead listen to the care-dependent. As it turns out, those who would rely on robotic carers have many positive things to say about them.
As developed societies age, demand for elder care increases. Paired with a shrinking labour force, this development will strain social welfare safety nets. To avoid spiralling costs and decreasing quality of care, the EU must embrace technological solutions. At the very least, it should not stand in their way, especially because, as it turns out, those who need robotic help are most in favour of it.
European states already struggle to take care of their elderly – a problem which will only intensify. Recently, a German retirement home worker called emergency services because she was overwhelmed and the only person on duty. This is not an isolated event. European elderly care is coming under strain everywhere as the number of those needing long-term care increases. At the same time, Europe faces a shortage of healthcare workers, worsening the problem even further.
There are options to solve this. Many countries recruit nurses from overseas, such as from the Philippines. Still, this may not be enough. We should consider the role healthcare robots might be able to play in lessening the burden..
Robots can alleviate workforce shortages, but critics fear they would erode the human touch in healthcare. Technological innovations in elder care, they say, must focus on “wellbeing, autonomy and dignity of elderly and vulnerable individuals”.These discussions are led by people who are not currently care-dependent. That’s a problem. Despite honourable intentions, they risk ignoring the perspective of the people they want to protect.
Such paternalism, even without intent to harm, is dangerous. It neglects the autonomy of care-dependent people. It also risks advocating for solutions which only make their lives worse. In fact, the care-dependent are positive about robotic care-workers. A survey found they are open to the idea of having robots play a larger role in their care, more so than people who are not currently care-dependent. While the care-dependent still rank human caregivers as preferable, their preferences hardly distinguish between a robotic caregiver and a human. Those who are not care-dependent rank robotic care workers much lower than humans.
By limiting the discussion on ethical and social perspectives to those who are not in care, Europe risks a paternalist stance towards the care-dependent. Instead of crafting legislation from the top down, policymakers should consider a more liberal, technology-affirming position. That is, they should allow the care-dependent to decide for themselves. Robotic help can alleviate the healthcare crisis. Listening to the care-dependent should be a principled commitment of a liberal continent.
By letting the elderly have a voice in their own care, Europe affirms their autonomy. There are, after all, reasons to opt for a robot. For instance, people may feel a newfound sense of autonomy if some of their daily tasks are no longer performed by a human, but by a robot over which they have control.
Such insights are not always apparent if one has never been in contact with the care-dependent. It is a problem in modern politics that legislators think they know what is best for people in various circumstances – and that they are pushed to do so by various activists. However, a key insight of liberal philosophy is that people know their own circumstances best. This also applies to the care-dependent. Policymakers should remember that.
Michael Haiden is a research associate at the University of Hohenheim, Chair of Economic and Social Ethics. He is a writing fellow with Young Voices, specialising in European politics and policy.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. The views expressed in this Frankly Speaking op-ed reflect those of the author and not of Friends of Europe. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
