Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42542955›Full record

ArticleNursing inquiry2026

Should Care Robots Answer? Rethinking Moral Answerability Beyond Humans.

Mario Kropf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mario KropfDepartment for Ethics and Social Studies, Department of Moral Theology, Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0645-3276

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI-based systems increasingly operate in socially and ethically sensitive domains such as healthcare, raising pressing questions about responsibility. This article focuses on a specific form of moral responsibility-answerability-in the context of AI-based care robots. Although such systems are not moral agents in a human-like sense, their actions are embedded in social practices in which demands for explanation play a significant role. The article develops a structured analytical framework that conceptualizes answerability as comprising both a subjective dimension (the actor's reasons and justifications) and an objective dimension (the comprehensibility and moral quality of explanations). It thereby clarifies the conditions under which demands for explanation arise and how they can be normatively assessed. Applying this framework to care robots, the article argues that these systems can be meaningfully treated as answerable, even though they are not accountable-in human terms. Concrete care scenarios illustrate that affected individuals may be entitled to demand explanations from robots, despite their technically mediated and limited responses. While current systems can only approximate the requirement of sincerity in a minimal sense, future developments may enable more sophisticated forms of technical answerability without necessarily grounding full moral responsibility.

Indexed as

MoralsRoboticsHumansanswerabilitycare robotshuman–robot interactionmoral responsibilityreactive attitudessocial robotics

Identifiers

PMID42542955
PMCPMC13429041

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.