Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41162800›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Ethical governance of AI-based humanoid carebots: the case for Ethics of Techno-care.

Sivan Tamir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sivan TamirThe Center for Health Law and Ethics , University of Haifa , 199 Abba Khoushy Ave, 3498838, Haifa, Israel. tamirims@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9706-7302

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reality of ageing population, with loneliness among older people recognised as a public health concern, and a significant shortage of caregivers-call for techno-creative solutions. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based humanoid carebots (AIhCs) are one emerging solution, where care for humans is being outsourced to robots, in what we dub as "techno-care". The humanisation of carebots, employing anthropomorphism to influence care-recipients' trust in and compliance with AIhCs, is a key issue, uniquely involving deception to achieve care-related goals, which may violate care-recipients' autonomy, among other things. This problem, and other autonomy-related issues, underscore the need for techno-care-specific ethical governance. We therefore set out to examine the appropriateness of existing ethical frameworks for governing AIhC design and implementation, focusing on autonomy and transparency, which are fundamental for AIhC ethicality. We intuitively start by considering the more novel frameworks of AI ethics and roboethics, then move to examine the well-established bioethics and ethics of care (EoC) frameworks. Our analysis concludes that no existing ethical framework adequately copes with the autonomy-related and other challenges of techno-care by AIhCs. We consequently suggest that a new derivative framework needs to be developed and applied to this setting-that of "ethics of techno-care" (EtC). We first distinguish EoC care setting and care-relationships from those of EtC, then offer a preliminary outline for this new normative guidance, comprised of the following key elements: human care-sensitive design, minimally-necessary deception, techno-care transparency, techno-care privacy design, techno-care autonomy, techno-care responsibility and accountability, and diversity and cultural sensitivity in AIhC design.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHumansPersonal AutonomyAI ethicsAutonomyDeceptionEthics of careHumanoid carebotsRoboethics

Identifiers

PMID41162800
PMCPMC12960324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.