ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Care ethics and the transformation of care in an age of artificial intelligence.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and care robots into healthcare raises a central ethical question: what constitutes care, and how should it be delivered when machines perform caregiving tasks? Dominant AI ethics frameworks, including principlism, deontology, and consequentialism, focus on fairness, duties, and outcomes. While important, these approaches often view care primarily as technical compliance or efficiency, overlooking its relational and evaluative aspects.
methodsThis analysis employs a normative, conceptual approach rooted in care and relational ethics, examining duty-based, outcome-oriented, and virtue-based care frameworks to highlight how they differ from care ethics as a structured moral practice. Tronto's four stages of care (attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness) serve as a framework for assessing moral labor in caregiving. Literature on social robots in healthcare is used illustratively. Conceptual analysis compares the interpersonal and moral dimensions of human caregiving with forms of AI interaction, noting changes when machines mediate or perform caregiving tasks.
resultsThe analysis shows that although AI systems can improve monitoring, coordination, and task performance, they do not assume moral responsibility or provide the relational and evaluative work that caregiving requires. Social and assistive robots reorganize moral labor by shifting attentiveness toward sensing, responsibility toward oversight, competence toward optimization, and responsiveness toward adaptive feedback. These changes create a functional resemblance to care without reproducing the moral engagement that characterizes genuine caregiving.
conclusionCare ethics elucidates the moral practices of caregiving and how these practices are transformed through the integration of AI into healthcare relationships. Since caregiving involves vulnerability, interdependence, and judgment, it cannot rely solely on efficiency. A care-ethical perspective demonstrates that AI does not replace moral labor; rather, it reorganizes it in ways that reduce the conditions under which authentic caregiving can be conducted. The incorporation of care ethics into AI governance frameworks provides tools for assessing not just what these technologies do but what they cost the moral practice of caregiving.
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.