Robots to Care for the Elderly?
Students at the University of Salford have developed a robot that can help care for elderly people. The robot can be programmed to remind individuals to take medication and exercise, answer questions and even tell jokes!
Researcher Antonio Espingardeiro believes that the robot could reduce the workload of care home staff and improve resident’s quality of life. The robot could perform routine tasks that don’t necessarily require humans, freeing up staff for other activities.
It is no secret that we have an ageing population which will put a greater strain on our economy, coupled with the current reduction in government support. Robots could reduce resident’s dependency on care staff and thereby enhance independent living. They might even make entertaining companions! But would we really want to interact with a robot on a daily basis rather than a flesh and blood human? Isolation and loneliness are issues that affect us all.
What do you think? Would you want to be cared for by a robots? Is there a role for robots in other areas of assisted living?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cathy Stephenson on
-
I think it is 'horses for courses' and just because we use Assistive Technology doesn't mean that one solution will suit everyone.
I would hate to have care from a robot but in delivering training I used the example of a personal care robot being developed in the far east, having described where the robot could wash I said "well I don't want a robot washing my arms never mind other bits BUT there will be some people who are shy who would rather have the robot than another human being".
It always raised a laugh initially (probably at the thought of a robot with a flannel approaching my nether regions) but then a discussion would follow about the implications of intimate personal care provision and people could really empathise with the dilemmas this technology could create or solve.
Inevitably robots will stand beside human care staff and I read recently of an example which made a lot of sense; a robot which detects incontinence by 'sniffing', alerts staff and deodorises the room after the personal care has been delivered by people. This is surely an example of lower intrusion in a person's life than having staff routinely checking for incontinence?
I would love to hear what other's think about this too
Cathy
-
Permalink Reply by David Jarrold on
-
This is really interesting. I think we need an honest debate about this. We talk about the need to enhance or compliment support by using technology - but are we really kidding ourselves? Are we really talking about replacing people with machines and is this the reality for the future?
-
-
I fear that in many cases it is thought of as replacing humans - but I am interested in how we can use technology to complement human provided care rather than to replace it.
For example, someone who has recovered from a brain trauma and who is quite capable of maintaining their personal hygiene - but may need prompting to do so; it is intrusive to send in a care worker each day to supervise the person carry out the task; providing prompts on a PDA/Mobile phone/Community Alarm system would allow the individual the autonomy to live more independently.
There are many other examples because technology doesn't come in one size fits all.
Cathy
-
Permalink Reply by Linda Jane McLean on
-
This has been the subject of debate since I studied in 1996!
While I agree with Cathy, that it is horses for courses, and many needs can be filled by technology, you cannot solve isolation with it.
The feeling at the time of our grand debate was that if technology saved money, no matter what the situation, then it would be used. This is my one aversion to technology: it's inappropriate use, or being seen as a "catch all" solution.
This website is called bespoken. I feel that every individual needs bespoke care. Some maybe happy with a robot: excellent. To some it might be their idea of hell. We must be able to provide successfully for these two extremes and all those that occupy the middle ground.
In illness and disability, what is missed most is the human touch and voice. We have thousands unemployed who could offer both.
Before offering one solution, which may APPEAR economically sensible, let's consider the gains.
What long term employment is created?
Who learns from the situation?
Is there knowledge transfer?
Is this the answer to our economic downturn?
How does leadership develop?
These are all important questions, brought to mind much more forcibly having read "Fighting Mad", by Mike Calvert,about the Chindits in the Second World War. It shone a light on how if you teach people to behave like robots you stifle both innovation and leadership, and in some cases original thought! This, I understand, is not quite the same - but read the book if you want to know more! It's a true adventure story.
The use of technology is much more complicated than it seems. Having lived mainly without social contact since December last years, I can tell you, categorically, a robot wouldn't do it for me.
I may be prompted to take my pills on time, but there is nothing to stop me from saying "What's the point?" and not bothering. The Robot won't know and cannot tell. Is that safe?
It is not just safety that is required but support and comfort: inclusion and feeling needed.
These are human necessities.
A robot can supply none of that for us: if you're Dr. Spock you'll be fine!
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Hills on
-
I think robot technology has great potential for improving the lives of the elderly...and for people of all ages for that matter!
And it's not just limited to the kind of "humanoid" assistant in the video (the science fiction kind!). Robots of different types and specializations could be coordinated amongst themselves as well as with simpler domestic technologies, for example fridges that detect sell-by-dates and notify users if they need more milk. Technologies like these can be integrated into the very structure of the home, especially newly-built homes - they don't have to be isolated fixtures.
All sorts of domestic and personal functions could be automated, and with (even basic) artificial intelligence machines can adapt to the needs of the individual.
Wired magazine recently ran a column on domestic technology, with opinions on the future of domestic technology from various people in the field. Some amazing ideas. The topic of cloud computing came up a lot as a way of processing domestic data within wider networks of information.
On a wider question: a standard objection to new technology is that tends to alienate us from each other by a separating wall of electronic devices and machinery. For example, the common complaint that people (especially teenagers) are increasingly drawn towards their smartphones and away from ordinary face to face interaction. The Pixar film Wall-E takes this to its extreme, with a vision of an overweight humanity permanently attached to floating multimedia armchairs, oblivious to anything beyond their screens. The idea of robots also takes this "dehumanizing technology" theme to its extreme - communication with other humans via technology turns into communication with the technology itself!
But surely labour-saving robots would do the opposite: by automating routine tasks (that are boring for humans and can often be done better than machines anyway) we can free up our time for more interesting, creative, and communicative activities, like engagement with our colleagues, family and friends.
Although some domestic robots are available to consumers now at relatively affordable prices - automated hoovers spring to mind - we will have to wait a while yet for more advanced robots to be made commercially viable, let alone be sure if they actually work, but I remain enthusiastic about robotics for use in a domestic setting.
-
-
I am not suggesting robots and technology are not good things Alex, I simply feel that I wouldn't want to receive personal care from a machine.
The caveat about your last two paragraphs are that it might be those boring tasks which give the individual valued human contact - the human contact may not be a need in itself but it is a by product since most care workers do chat with the service users they support.
Robot hoovers might on the face of it seem an excellent idea but actually does the person only get exercise from their household chores and a whirl with the hoover has a positive benefit on their general health OR are they prone to falls in which case having a robot hoover might not be a positive intervention at all?
Yes to some extent I am playing Devil's Advocate with those suggestions but we really do need to think holistically and not get too focussed on the technology
Cathy
PS I will not be able to have a robot hoover either - I have two dogs who would think it was a chasing toy for their benefit! LOL
-
Permalink Reply by Helen Donaldson on
-
Of course, it would be inappropriate to use this kind of technology to replace needed human contact. But I also think it is inappropriate to assume that contact with carers (especially paid carers) can stand in for all social contact for a person with care needs. All technology in this field comes with ethical issues to resolve and this would be no different but I could easily see this type of technology (when it is further developed) being a useful tool for some people. I have worked with people who would probably quite enjoy the solitude they might achieve with something like this that is denied them because of the need for care from people.
Personally, I could do without the fake persona ("It's good to see you again, Antonio") but presumably that could be taken care of with individual programming!
© 2024 Created by Gordon White.
Powered by
