In a conversation with Thomas Arnold, ethicist at the Tufts center for human-robot interaction, we focused on understanding different ethical frameworks, and suggesting how those frameworks would be applied to different concerns in product development and the future of technology. Within a specific example of an advanced autonomous wheelchair (AW), the group explored the concerns of such a product from the perspective of elderly advocates, community leaders, and unions. During the debrief, a concern that struck me as a serious long term negative consequence of wheelchair (and healthcare) automation is the eventual & subtle loss of human interaction and therefore, empathy.

Empathy is the ability to live in someone else shoes, and as a designer or engineer, to build for the user from their perspective. My concern with empathy as it relates to wheelchair automation, is interaction that designers & professionals have with the capitalistic directive of for-profit companies. The original designers, as Thomas pointed out, designed the wheelchair with true empathy: they built with the user (an immobile or disabled person) in mind, hoping to make their lives a bit better & easier. Once the technology finds its place in elderly and assisted living homes, those business will begin to utilize and deeply adopt the use of AW technology.

All assisted living homes are not created equal. Some treat patients as their own, while others are more budget-focused and do the minimum to keep their patients comfortable and happy. Homes with small budgets and low margins, as any business, are constantly looking for ways to better utilize their environment and increase margins. Automated services typically enable systems to run more efficiently with less resources by cutting duplicative jobs and monotonous busy work. Budget conscious assisted living homes may view autonomous wheelchairs (AW), and the extremely rich data about infrastructure use & resident behavior, as a ticket to efficiency. Such homes may therefore begin to employ fleets of AW’s to be used by all patients. At first, the AW’s could handle simple tasks like rolling over to the cafeteria or helping with medication delivery. As the company recognizes the efficiencies gained by such small applications of the technology, the AW’s might take more responsibility away from caretakers, and ultimately might begin redesigning the entire facility to adhere to a better flow for AW-driven assisted living.

This all sounds great for the company. AW’s have driven profit margins through the roof, the board is happy, the facilities are clean and effective. Yet it is easy to imagine the strange and desolate life of a person being cared for in one of these places. Residents are now living out their golden years being shuffled around by robotic chairs within an assembly line of technology. The level of human interaction with their caretakers has dropped significantly, thus the emotional connection that is so important between caretaker and patient has vanished. Overall happiness and quality of life will certainly start to deteriorate, all as a result of the lack of empathy employed as these technologies were implemented in order to service a larger profit margin. These concerns and visions of the future need to be recognized, and we need to protect those who may be harmed by employing ethical boundaries on the application of certain automated technologies.

As an advocacy leader working on behalf of the elderly and members of assisted living communities, I’d be very specific about the type of ethicist joining my team to ensure we have the strongest opportunity to make a change. Different ethical frameworks bring different perspectives on what the ethical nature of the concern is. Those frameworks covered in class were:

Considering the form of the concern and the potential future that the growth a AW technology could create, I’d focus my efforts on employing a utilitarian ethicist to be the voice of the people potentially effected by the tech at hand.

Utilitarian ethics focus on understanding the implications of a decision. In the case of AW’s, the negative potential implications of the rise of the technology are rooted in the resulting lifestyle and quality of life that is created for the end user. A utilitarian ethicist would be able to paint an extremely clear picture around how the technology could negatively impact someones life, perverse an economic system, and lead to a inhumane scenario for those involved. One must also recognize that the original designers and intentions of the technology is good. AW’s provide incredible benefits to folks who need assisted living support and take great strain off of the caretakers who ensure their well-being. Therefore, the ethicist should not focus on reducing the overall value of the technology, yet they should help the market recognize the risks, and begin debating on legislation and policy driven boundaries to ensure the aforementioned future doesn’t occur. In this instance, I’d work with the ethicist to determine appropriate boundaries to protect our citizens. Examples of such boundaries are below:

A utilitarian approach to protecting the elderly community directly focuses on economic policy and applications of a given technology. As such, I’d expect there to be resistance from free-market lobbyists and conservative regulators who wish to reduce the amount of regulation that exists on technology growth and application. We’d need to prepare our defense team, our ethicist, and select groups of other cultural activists to be prepared to defend our position on creating regulation around AW’s, and prove both that policy will protect our elderly, and also not inhibit economic growth to the extent that the adversaries are claiming.