In a future scenario of family caregiving, a working daughter cares remotely for her mother with Parkinson's using a digital assistant, a smart-home monitoring system and a telepresence robot. Which ethical questions does such care technology raise?
Whether everyone will have equal access to it (the lesson of the digital divide), whether stronger monitoring of frail elderly people needs safeguards for their privacy and dignity, and how far technology may substitute for being there in person.
The scenario "Angels in the Floorboards" (Institute for the Future, Caregiving 2031): Lauren has a full-time job, two children and a mother, Carolyn, with Parkinson's disease who lives alone an hour away. An intelligent assistant coordinates family and care schedules, a smart home monitors Carolyn's activities and health, and a mobile telepresence robot lets family visit virtually and will soon give physical help. Lauren knows the tools are no substitute for being there, but they fill gaps, and she knows new technologies bring new problems even as they solve others.
The ethical questions:
- Equity of access: what does the digital divide of past decades teach us about making sure people without money or tech skills are not left out?
- Privacy and dignity: as monitoring of frail elders becomes more powerful, what safeguards protect them? Being watched constantly "for your own good" is a soft form of paternalism.
- Substitute or supplement: relieving the caregiver (beneficence for Lauren) must not quietly replace human presence for Carolyn.
Amara's law is a useful caution: "We tend to overestimate the impact of technology in the short term and underestimate it in the long term."
Go deeper:
IFTF: Caregiving 2031 — the scenario toolkit and video.- Wikipedia: Roy Amara — origin of Amara's law.
- Wikipedia: Digital divide — the access gap the scenario warns about.