{"title":"智能辅助技术、老龄化和家庭环境的交叉伦理:范围审查。","authors":"Elisabeth Langmann, Hans-Jörg-Ehni","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10479-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is being developed to enable safe and autonomous ageing at home and is associated with supporting quality of life. These anticipated benefits must be balanced against potential unintended negative effects. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize the key ethical dimensions and frameworks discussed in the relevant scholarly literature. Furthermore, we examine whether the ethical dimensions identified can be derived from the four principles of bioethics, suggesting that, when properly specified, principlism could serve as a systematic framework for evaluating IAT. Thus, our review has two aims: identifying the ethical dimensions and frameworks currently discussed and investigating whether these frameworks can be structured according to the four principles or if additional principles are necessary. A systematic search across the databases PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Belit, and PhilPapers, plus a manual search identified 535 publications, from which twenty-three studies were included. The results show twenty-one heterogeneous ethical dimensions, with similar matters considered across different categories. The review shows that key expectations and promises of developing and using IAT in this context mostly relate to the possibility of safely ageing at home and reducing healthcare costs. While assigning these ethical dimensions to the four principles of bioethics, it became clear that although all aspects discussed could be subcategorized, some ethical concerns might lose visibility or be inadequately addressed. We, therefore, conclude that the four principles generally provide a sufficient basis for evaluating these technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics at the Intersection of Intelligent Assistive Technology, Ageing, and the Home Environment: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth Langmann, Hans-Jörg-Ehni\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-025-10479-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is being developed to enable safe and autonomous ageing at home and is associated with supporting quality of life. These anticipated benefits must be balanced against potential unintended negative effects. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize the key ethical dimensions and frameworks discussed in the relevant scholarly literature. Furthermore, we examine whether the ethical dimensions identified can be derived from the four principles of bioethics, suggesting that, when properly specified, principlism could serve as a systematic framework for evaluating IAT. Thus, our review has two aims: identifying the ethical dimensions and frameworks currently discussed and investigating whether these frameworks can be structured according to the four principles or if additional principles are necessary. A systematic search across the databases PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Belit, and PhilPapers, plus a manual search identified 535 publications, from which twenty-three studies were included. The results show twenty-one heterogeneous ethical dimensions, with similar matters considered across different categories. The review shows that key expectations and promises of developing and using IAT in this context mostly relate to the possibility of safely ageing at home and reducing healthcare costs. While assigning these ethical dimensions to the four principles of bioethics, it became clear that although all aspects discussed could be subcategorized, some ethical concerns might lose visibility or be inadequately addressed. We, therefore, conclude that the four principles generally provide a sufficient basis for evaluating these technologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10479-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10479-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
智能辅助技术(IAT)正在发展,以实现安全和自主的家庭老龄化,并与支持生活质量相关。这些预期的好处必须与潜在的意想不到的负面影响相平衡。本综述旨在识别和总结相关学术文献中讨论的关键伦理维度和框架。此外,我们研究了所确定的伦理维度是否可以从生物伦理学的四个原则中推导出来,这表明,如果适当指定,原则可以作为评估IAT的系统框架。因此,我们的审查有两个目的:确定当前讨论的道德维度和框架,并调查这些框架是否可以根据四项原则构建,或者是否需要额外的原则。通过PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE、Belit和PhilPapers数据库的系统搜索,加上人工搜索,确定了535份出版物,其中包括23项研究。结果显示了21个不同的伦理维度,在不同的类别中考虑了类似的问题。审查表明,在这种情况下,开发和使用IAT的主要期望和承诺主要与在家安全老龄化和降低医疗保健费用的可能性有关。在将这些伦理维度分配给生物伦理学的四项原则时,很明显,尽管所讨论的所有方面都可以再分类,但一些伦理问题可能会失去可见性或没有得到充分解决。因此,我们得出结论,这四项原则通常为评估这些技术提供了充分的基础。
Ethics at the Intersection of Intelligent Assistive Technology, Ageing, and the Home Environment: A Scoping Review.
Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is being developed to enable safe and autonomous ageing at home and is associated with supporting quality of life. These anticipated benefits must be balanced against potential unintended negative effects. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize the key ethical dimensions and frameworks discussed in the relevant scholarly literature. Furthermore, we examine whether the ethical dimensions identified can be derived from the four principles of bioethics, suggesting that, when properly specified, principlism could serve as a systematic framework for evaluating IAT. Thus, our review has two aims: identifying the ethical dimensions and frameworks currently discussed and investigating whether these frameworks can be structured according to the four principles or if additional principles are necessary. A systematic search across the databases PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Belit, and PhilPapers, plus a manual search identified 535 publications, from which twenty-three studies were included. The results show twenty-one heterogeneous ethical dimensions, with similar matters considered across different categories. The review shows that key expectations and promises of developing and using IAT in this context mostly relate to the possibility of safely ageing at home and reducing healthcare costs. While assigning these ethical dimensions to the four principles of bioethics, it became clear that although all aspects discussed could be subcategorized, some ethical concerns might lose visibility or be inadequately addressed. We, therefore, conclude that the four principles generally provide a sufficient basis for evaluating these technologies.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies