ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025
Does Humanness Matter? An Ethical Evaluation of Sharing Care Work with Social Robots.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Empathy and Spiritual Care: Limits of AI-Mediated Compassion in Chaplaincy.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Mapping Ethical Blind Spots in the Use of New Technologies to Support Elder Care.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Hospital-Based Robotic Applications in Nursing Practice: A Scoping Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026Article
- Navigating the discourse on the use of social robot Pepper: ethical and practical implications.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Digital Technologies That Support Meaningful Connections in Care Homes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While social robots offer potential benefits like task assistance and companionship, their integration raises concerns about the erosion of human connection and the dehumanization of care. Through a qualitative study of older adults, family caregivers, and professional caregivers in Switzerland, we examined their perceptions of social robots and their understanding of the "human contact" in eldercare. Findings revealed the importance of emotional warmth, complex social interactions, and empathy. However, participants also acknowledged the potential benefits of such robots in specific tasks. We argue that the ethical assessment of care robots should focus on determining when robotic contact is desirable. By understanding the limitations of human connection and that humanness is a dual character concept (both descriptive and normative), we identify scenarios where social robots may offer advantages, such as providing care without judging and stimulate social engagement. Robotic "touch" can potentially complement human care in certain situations, preserving older persons' dignity and improving their quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.