Page - 185 - in Pflegeroboter

18510 Implementing Responsible Research … the end of human civilisation or maybe even humanity, as represented in much popular culture and science fiction output. In this paper the focus is on care robots, i. e. robotic devices that provide or support the human provision of care or aspects thereof. There is significant overlap with medical robots as well as social robots, such as artificial companions. The exact delineation of care robots is less important here than the concerns that one can find in the literature. Elsewhere we have described these concerns in more detail (Stahl and Coeckelbergh 2016). In this paper I only briefly recapitulate what these concerns are, to provide the background of the ethical problems that RRI needs to address and that BS 8611 should be sensitive to. We distinguish between three types of ethical concerns, each with a set of individual problems. The first set of issues arises from a critical evaluation of the vision that drives health- care technology and their implications for society. These include the replacement of human beings and the implications that such replacement has for labour. For instance, in research concerning the development of robots for the elderly, robots are often presen- ted as a response to demographic challenges (Fischinger et al. 2015). But it is not clear that such technological solutions can or should be the solution to the problem. It is simi- larly not clear to what degree this really constitutes an economic problem and a threat to employment and what the consequences for human care work would be. A second example is the replacement of humans and its implications for the quality of care; the dehumanization of care. An important fear in discussions about robots in healthcare is that robots may replace human care givers, and that this may not only put these people out of job, but also remove the capacity for “warm”, “human” care from the care pro- cess. It is highly doubtful, for instance, if robots could ever be truly empathic (Stahl et al. 2014) or have emotions (Coeckelbergh 2010). There is the concern that elderly people are abandoned, handed over to robots (Sparrow and Sparrow 2006) devoid of human contact ( Sharkey and Sharkey 2010). Concerns arise both with regards to the potential objectification of care givers and care receivers. A second set of issues has less to do with the idea of replacement and more with human-robot interaction in healthcare. A key issue discussed in this respect is autonomy. While autonomy comes in degrees and not all healthcare robots are autonomous, the concept of machine autonomy is often seen as problematic. In addition to the question of human replacement, it raises fundamental questions about the appropriateness of auto- nomous machines and the degree to which autonomy would be acceptable. In practical terms this raises questions about liability and responsibility. It is open to debate which roles and tasks should be undertaken by robots and to what degree it is legitimate to provide them with autonomy. On one extreme end of the spectrum of possible answers to this one can find fully autonomous robots that interact with care receivers without human input. In this case one could argue that robots should be endowed with a capacity to undertake ethical reasoning (Anderson and Anderson 2015; Wallach and Allen 2008). However, the very possibility of constructing such ethical reasoning in machines is con- tested. Increased use of robots in care and the possibility of robots acting increasingly