Trust as a Solution to Human Vulnerability: Ethical Considerations on Trust in Care Robots.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Mario Kropf
{"title":"Trust as a Solution to Human Vulnerability: Ethical Considerations on Trust in Care Robots.","authors":"Mario Kropf","doi":"10.1111/nup.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the care sector, professionals face numerous challenges, such as a lack of resources, overloaded wards, physical and psychological strain, stressful constellations with patients and cooperation with medical professionals. Care robots are therefore increasingly being used to provide relief or to test new forms of interaction. However, this also raises the question of trust in these technical companions and the potential vulnerability to which these people then expose themselves. This article deals with an ethical analysis of the two concepts of trust and vulnerability in the context of care robotics. The first step is to examine what can be understood by vulnerability, focusing specifically on Misztal's three proposed types (relationships, future anticipation, past experiences). This strategy is often used as a starting point by authors and also seems relevant for the connection to the concept of trust. In a second step, these three types of human vulnerability are examined on the basis of a technical concept of trust. It is shown that (1) relationships and thus also interdependence can create additional options, (2) the anticipation problem with regard to the actions of others also makes responsibility transferable and (3) an explication of freedom is also associated with potential traumatic experiences. The final step brings together the previous considerations and makes it clear once again that trust in a care robot need not only be associated with vulnerability, but that vulnerability can also potentially be reduced, transferred and overcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":49724,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Philosophy","volume":"26 2","pages":"e70020"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11896634/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.70020","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the care sector, professionals face numerous challenges, such as a lack of resources, overloaded wards, physical and psychological strain, stressful constellations with patients and cooperation with medical professionals. Care robots are therefore increasingly being used to provide relief or to test new forms of interaction. However, this also raises the question of trust in these technical companions and the potential vulnerability to which these people then expose themselves. This article deals with an ethical analysis of the two concepts of trust and vulnerability in the context of care robotics. The first step is to examine what can be understood by vulnerability, focusing specifically on Misztal's three proposed types (relationships, future anticipation, past experiences). This strategy is often used as a starting point by authors and also seems relevant for the connection to the concept of trust. In a second step, these three types of human vulnerability are examined on the basis of a technical concept of trust. It is shown that (1) relationships and thus also interdependence can create additional options, (2) the anticipation problem with regard to the actions of others also makes responsibility transferable and (3) an explication of freedom is also associated with potential traumatic experiences. The final step brings together the previous considerations and makes it clear once again that trust in a care robot need not only be associated with vulnerability, but that vulnerability can also potentially be reduced, transferred and overcome.

信任作为人类脆弱性的解决方案:对护理机器人信任的伦理考虑。
在护理领域,专业人员面临着诸多挑战,如资源匮乏、病房超负荷、身心疲惫、与病人之间的紧张关系以及与医疗专业人员之间的合作。因此,护理机器人被越来越多地用于缓解压力或测试新的互动形式。然而,这也提出了对这些技术伙伴的信任问题,以及这些人可能面临的脆弱性问题。本文将对护理机器人中的信任和脆弱性这两个概念进行伦理分析。第一步是研究什么可以被理解为脆弱性,特别侧重于米兹塔尔提出的三种类型(关系、对未来的预期、过去的经历)。这一策略经常被作者用作出发点,而且似乎也与信任概念相关。第二步,以信任的技术概念为基础,对这三种人类脆弱性进行研究。结果表明:(1) 关系以及相互依存可以产生额外的选择;(2) 对他人行为的预期问题也使得责任可以转移;(3) 对自由的阐释也与潜在的创伤经历有关。最后一步综合了前面的考虑,再次明确了对护理机器人的信任不一定只与脆弱性相关,脆弱性也有可能被减少、转移和克服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
39
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Philosophy provides a forum for discussion of philosophical issues in nursing. These focus on questions relating to the nature of nursing and to the phenomena of key relevance to it. For example, any understanding of what nursing is presupposes some conception of just what nurses are trying to do when they nurse. But what are the ends of nursing? Are they to promote health, prevent disease, promote well-being, enhance autonomy, relieve suffering, or some combination of these? How are these ends are to be met? What kind of knowledge is needed in order to nurse? Practical, theoretical, aesthetic, moral, political, ''intuitive'' or some other? Papers that explore other aspects of philosophical enquiry and analysis of relevance to nursing (and any other healthcare or social care activity) are also welcome and might include, but not be limited to, critical discussions of the work of nurse theorists who have advanced philosophical claims (e.g., Benner, Benner and Wrubel, Carper, Schrok, Watson, Parse and so on) as well as critical engagement with philosophers (e.g., Heidegger, Husserl, Kuhn, Polanyi, Taylor, MacIntyre and so on) whose work informs health care in general and nursing in particular.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信