Abstracts
Abstract
Health is usually seen as an important prerequisite for the realization of life goals and therefore has a great meaning in society. Many authors and their perspectives also make it clear that health can be seen as a moral value that is ethically relevant and must be promoted. In recent years, numerous crises, armed conflicts, digitalization and, more generally, the fast pace of life in society, have contributed to raise awareness of mental health. This article deals with an ethical analysis of mental health in the context of AI-based care robots. Robot companions in the care sector are increasingly being used, and this trend will continue in the near future. However, the question arises as to what extent these machines can contribute to mental health when interacting with people receiving care. First, the relevance of mental health and ethical implications are presented. In a second step, care robots and their potential influence on the mental health of individuals in need of care are discussed. The third step shows how fair access to the value of (mental) health can be realized, even and perhaps because care robots are increasingly assigned to care for people. Finally, ethical challenges are discussed, and possible objections are addressed. The focus is ultimately on the importance of care robots, since they can address the issue of mental health, at least to some extent, in a specific technical way.
Keywords:
- mental health,
- care robots,
- robot companions,
- artificial intelligence,
- justice,
- ethics,
- fair access
Résumé
La santé est généralement considérée comme une condition préalable importante pour la réalisation des objectifs de la vie et revêt donc une grande importance dans la société. De nombreux auteurs et leurs points de vue indiquent également clairement que la santé peut être considérée comme une valeur morale, pertinente d’un point de vue éthique et qui doit être promue. Ces dernières années, de nombreuses crises, des conflits armés, la numérisation et, plus généralement, le rythme rapide de la vie en société ont contribué à sensibiliser à la santé mentale. Cet article traite d’une analyse éthique de la santé mentale dans le contexte des robots de soins basés sur l’IA. Les robots compagnons sont de plus en plus utilisés dans le secteur des soins et cette tendance se poursuivra dans un avenir proche. Toutefois, la question se pose de savoir dans quelle mesure ces machines peuvent contribuer à la santé mentale lorsqu’elles interagissent avec des personnes recevant des soins. Dans un premier temps, la pertinence de la santé mentale et les implications éthiques sont présentées. Dans un deuxième temps, les robots de soins et leur influence potentielle sur la santé mentale des personnes nécessitant des soins sont examinés. La troisième étape montre comment un accès équitable à la valeur de la santé (mentale) peut être réalisé, même et peut-être parce que les robots de soins sont de plus en plus souvent affectés aux soins des personnes. Enfin, les défis éthiques sont discutés et les objections possibles sont abordées. En fin de compte, l’accent est mis sur l’importance des robots de soins, puisqu’ils peuvent aborder la question de la santé mentale, au moins dans une certaine mesure, d’une manière technique spécifique.
Mots-clés :
- santé mentale,
- robots de soins,
- compagnons robots,
- intelligence artificielle,
- justice,
- éthique,
- accès équitable
Appendices
Bibliography
- 1. Flanagan O, Sarkissian H, Wong D. Naturalizing ethics. In: Clark KJ, editor. The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 16-33.
- 2. Wagemaker E, Dekkers TJ, van Agelink Rentergem JA, Volkers KM, Huizenga HM. Advances in mental health care: five n = 1 studies on the effects of the robot seal Paro in adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2017;10(4):309-20.
- 3. Coeckelbergh M. Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human-robot relations. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2011;3(2):197-204.
- 4. Coeckelbergh M. Can we trust robots? Ethics and Information Technology. 2012;14(1):53-60.
- 5. Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology. 2012;14(1):27-40.
- 6. Sorell T, Draper H. Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology. 2014;16(3):183-95.
- 7. van Wynsberghe A. Service robots, care ethics, and design. Ethics and Information Technology. 2016;18(4):311-21.
- 8. Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1980;137(5):535-44.
- 9. Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1981;6(2):101-23.
- 10. Britt KC, Richards KC, Radhakrishnan K, et al. Religion, spirituality, and coping during the pandemic: perspectives of dementia caregivers. Clinical Nursing Research. 2023;32(1):94-104.
- 11. Benites AC, Rodin G, Leite ACAB, Nascimento LC, Dos Santos MA. The experience of spirituality in family caregivers of adult and elderly cancer patients receiving palliative care: A meta-synthesis. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2021;30(4):e13424.
- 12. Zurzycka P, Wojtas K, Czyżowicz K. Spiritual care for people suffering from dementia disorders — selected issues. Nursing Problems / Problemy Pielęgniarstwa. 2020;28(3-4):127-32.
- 13. Kropf M. Spiritualität im kontext von demenzerkrankungen: ethische anforderungen für eine ganzheitliche betreuung am lebensende. Spiritual Care. 2024;13(1):33-41.
- 14. Laube W. Mentale gesundheit und physische aktivität. Manuelle Medizin. 2022;60(1):13-21.
- 15. Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection. Nationale Strategie zur psychischen Gesundheit. 2025.
- 16. WHO-Regionalbüro für Europa. WHO verweist in neuem Bericht auf ungleiche gesundheitliche Fortschritte in Europa und fordert zur Messung des Fortschritts eine genauere Erfassung des Wohlbefindens: Weltgesundheitsorganisation. 2013.
- 17. Glawischnig-Goschnik. Brauchen wir ein bio-psycho-sozio-spirituelles Modell?: Überlegungen zum Menschenbild in der Medizin. In: Schaupp W, Platzer J, Kröll W, editors. Gesundheitssorge und Spiritualität im Krankenhaus. Innsbruck, Wien: Tyrolia-Verl.; 2014. p. 29-54.
- 18. Gesundheitsportal. Psychischen Belastungen offen begegnen — Hilfe suchen! 1 Jul 2020.
- 19. Thornicroft G, Deb T, Henderson C. Community mental health care worldwide: current status and further developments. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(3):276-86.
- 20. Bucci S, Schwannauer M, Berry N. The digital revolution and its impact on mental health care. Psychology and Psychotherapy. 2019;92(2):277-97.
- 21. World Health Organization. Mental Health. 17 Jun 2022.
- 22. World Health Organization. Mental Health Atlas 2020. 1st ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
- 23. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.
- 24. Cloninger CR. A new conceptual paradigm from genetics and psychobiology for the science of mental health. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;33(2):174-86.
- 25. McCammon JM, Sive H. Addressing the genetics of human mental health disorders in model organisms. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2015;16:173-97.
- 26. Hyman S. Mental health: depression needs large human-genetics studies. Nature. 2014;515(7526):189-91.
- 27. Marckmann G. Gesundheit und Gerechtigkeit. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(8):887-94.
- 28. Rabbitt SM, Kazdin AE, Scassellati B. Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clinical Psychology Review. 2015;35:35-46.
- 29. Prince M, Patel V, Saxena S, et al. No health without mental health. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):859-77.
- 30. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). ICD-11; 2024.
- 31. DocCheck Community GmbH. DSM-5; 2024.
- 32. Ornstein H. Macht, Moral und Recht: Studien zur Grundproblematik menschlichen Zusammenlebens. Bern: A. Francke AG;1946.
- 33. Bauer G, Jenny G. Gesundheit in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. In: Moser K, editor. Wirtschaftspsychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2007. p. 221-43.
- 34. Sitter-Liver B. Universale moralische prinzipien und normen — ein naiver traum? Zeitschrift für Politik. 2010;57(2):141-55.
- 35. Bhugra D, Till A, Sartorius N. What is mental health? International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2013;59(1):3-4.
- 36. Singer P. Practical Ethics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
- 37. Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, Saraceno B. The treatment gap in mental health care. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2004; 82(11):858-66.
- 38. Schmidhuber M. Werden Roboter Menschen in der Pflege ersetzen? Ethische Überlegungen. In: Stronegger WJ, Platzer J, editors. Technisierung der Pflege. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG; 2022. p. 167-74.
- 39. Vandemeulebroucke T, Dzi K, Gastmans C. Older adults’ experiences with and perceptions of the use of socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of quantitative evidence. Arch Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2021;95:104399.
- 40. Scoglio AA, Reilly ED, Gorman JA, Drebing CE. Use of social robots in mental health and well-being research: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019;21(7):e13322.
- 41. Shibata T, Wada K. Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly - a mini-review. Gerontology. 2011;57(4):378-86.
- 42. Miller E, Polson D. Apps, avatars, and robots: the future of mental healthcare. Issues Mental Health Nursing. 2019;40(3):208-14.
- 43. Gültekin M. Could robots empatize? a review on the employment of social robots in mental healthcare. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal. 2022;12(67):593-618.
- 44. KOMPAÏ robotics. Discover our robots; 2024.
- 45. Wikipedia. Nao (robot).
- 46. Naneva S, Sarda Gou M, Webb TL, Prescott TJ. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2020;12(6):1179-201.
- 47. Hung L, Mann J, Perry J, Berndt A, Wong J. Technological risks and ethical implications of using robots in long-term care. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering. 2022;9:20556683221106917.
- 48. Soljacic F, Law T, Chita-Tegmark M, Scheutz M. Robots in healthcare as envisioned by care professionals. Intelligent Service Robotics. 2024;17(3):685-701.
- 49. Kropf M. Trust as a solution to human vulnerability: ethical considerations on trust in care robots. Nursing Philosophy. 2025;26(2):e70020.
- 50. Langer A, Feingold-Polak R, Mueller O, Kellmeyer P, Levy-Tzedek S. Trust in socially assistive robots: Considerations for use in rehabilitation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2019;104:231-9.
- 51. Papadopoulos C, Castro N, Nigath A, et al. The CARESSES randomised controlled trial: exploring the health-related impact of culturally competent artificial intelligence embedded into socially assistive robots and tested in older adult care homes. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2022;14(1):245-56.
- 52. Robaczewski A, Bouchard J, Bouchard K, Gaboury S. Socially assistive robots: the specific case of the NAO. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021;13(4):795-831.
- 53. Cifuentes CA, Pinto MJ, Céspedes N, Múnera M. Social robots in therapy and care. Current Robotics Reports. 2020;1(3):59-74.
- 54. Chita-Tegmark M, Scheutz M. Assistive robots for the social management of health: a framework for robot design and human-robot interaction research. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021;13(2):197-217.
- 55. Noguchi Y, Kamide H, Tanaka F. How should a social mediator robot convey messages about the self-disclosures of elderly people to recipients? International Journal of Social Robotics. 2023;15(7):1079-99.
- 56. Erebak S, Turgut T. The mediator role of robot anxiety on the relationship between social anxiety and the attitude toward interaction with robots. AI & Society. 2020;35(4):1047-53.
- 57. Druckman D, Adrian L, Damholdt MF, et al. Who is best at mediating a social conflict? comparing robots, screens and humans. Group Decis Negot. 2021;30(2):395-426.
- 58. Fasola J, Matarić MJ. Socially assistive robot exercise coach: motivating older adults to engage in physical exercise. In: Desai JP, Dudek G, Khatib O, Kumar V, editors. Experimental Robotics. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 463-79.
- 59. Yuan F, Anderson JG, Wyatt TH, et al. Assessing the acceptability of a humanoid robot for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia care using an online survey. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2022;14(5):1223-37.
- 60. Ghafurian M, Hoey J, Dautenhahn K. Social robots for the care of persons with dementia. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction. 2021;10(4):1-31.
- 61. Khosla R, Chu M-T, Khaksar SMS, Nguyen K, Nishida T. Engagement and experience of older people with socially assistive robots in home care. Assistive Technology. 2021;33(2):57-71.
- 62. Dosso JA, Bandari E, Malhotra A, et al. User perspectives on emotionally aligned social robots for older adults and persons living with dementia. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering. 2022;9:20556683221108364.
- 63. Kitt ER, Crossman MK, Matijczak A, Burns GB, Kazdin AE. Evaluating the role of a socially assistive robot in children’s mental health care. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2021;30(7):1722-35.
- 64. Honekamp I, Sauer L, Wache T, Honekamp W. Akzeptanz von pflegerobotern im krankenhaus. TATuP. 2019;28(2):58-63.
- 65. Nijssen SR, Müller BCN, Bosse T, Paulus M. Can you count on a calculator? The role of agency and affect in judgments of robots as moral agents. Human-Computer Interaction. 2022; 38(5-6):400-16.
- 66. Oksanen A, Savela N, Latikka R, Koivula A. Trust toward robots and artificial intelligence: an experimental approach to human-technology interactions online. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:568256.
- 67. Mori M, MacDorman K, Kageki N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. 2012;19(2):98-100.
- 68. Berger CC, Gonzalez-Franco M, Ofek E, Hinckley K. The uncanny valley of haptics. Science Robotics. 2018;3(17):eaar7010.
- 69. Biermann H, Brauner P, Ziefle M. How context and design shape human-robot trust and attributions. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics. 2021;12(1):74-86.
- 70. Schönmann M, Bodenschatz A, Uhl M, Walkowitz G. Contagious humans: A pandemic’s positive effect on attitudes towards care robots. Technology in Society. 2024;76:102464.
- 71. Yew GCK. Trust in and ethical design of carebots: the case for ethics of care. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021;13(4):629-45.
- 72. Carros F, Schwaninger I, Preussner A, et al. Care workers making use of robots: results of a three-month study on human-robot interaction within a care home. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA. 2022;61:1-15.
- 73. Kropf M. Trust and care robots: philosophical considerations, ethical challenges, and viable options. Intelligent Service Robotics. 2025;18(2):339-50.
- 74. Huster S. Grundversorgung und soziale gerechtigkeit im gesundheitswesen. In: Rauprich O, editor. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: mentis; 2005. p. 187-212.
- 75. Rauprich O. Gleichheit und vorrangigkeit in der gesundheitsversorgung - eine prüfung der neuen egalitarismuskritik. In: Rauprich O, editor. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: mentis; 2005. p. 13-52.
- 76. Heidenreich F. Theorien der Gerechtigkeit: Eine Einführung. Opladen: Budrich; 2011.
- 77. Rawls J. Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. 1. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1979.
- 78. Brock DW. Priority of the worse off in health-care resource prioritization. In: Rauprich O, editor. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: mentis; 2005. p. 37-52.
- 79. Höffe O. Gerechtigkeit: Eine philosophische Einführung. Orig.-Ausg., 5., durchges. Aufl. München: Beck; 2015.
- 80. Otsuka M. Skepticism about saving the greater number. In: Rauprich O, editor. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: mentis; 2005. p. 145-58.
- 81. Kabacińska K, Prescott TJ, Robillard JM. Socially assistive robots as mental health interventions for children: a scoping review. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021;13(5):919-35.
- 82. Guemghar I, Pires de Oliveira Padilha P, Abdel-Baki A, Jutras-Aswad D, Paquette J, Pomey M-P. Social robot interventions in mental health care and their outcomes, barriers, and facilitators: scoping review. JMIR Mental Health. 2022;9(4):e36094.
- 83. Meyer K. Eine kleine chance für David. Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit und chancengleichheit. In: Rauprich O, editor. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: mentis; 2005. p. 127-44.
- 84. Schmidhuber M. Ein gutes Leben für Menschen mit Demenz: Ethische Herausforderungen in Betreuung und Pflege. Wien, Münster: Lit; 2020.
- 85. Szondy M, Fazekas P. Attachment to robots and therapeutic efficiency in mental health. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15:1347177.
- 86. Huang R, Li H, Suomi R, Li C, Peltoniemi T. Intelligent physical robots in health care: systematic literature review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2023;25:e39786.
- 87. Holland J, Kingston L, McCarthy C, et al. Service robots in the healthcare sector. Robotics 2021;10(47).
- 88. HLEG AI. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission. 8 Apr 2019.