“Oh, Dignity too?” Said the Robot: Human Dignity as the Basis for the Governance of Robotics
This academic paper explores how various healthcare robot applications support or pressure human dignity. It analyzes the limitations of existing safety rules, data protection laws, and technology ethics in governing robotics. Ultimately, it proposes human dignity as the overarching legal framework and basis for the governance of robotics.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This paper is for researchers, policymakers, and legal scholars looking to understand how human dignity can anchor the governance of healthcare robotics.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the ethical, legal, and social implications of healthcare robotics through the lens of human dignity, evaluating various robotic applications and existing regulatory mechanisms like data protection, safety rules, and tech ethics.
The document does not provide a binding legislative text, specific statutory enforcement mechanisms, or concrete technical code requirements.
- Healthcare robots offer innovative solutions for demographic challenges and healthcare staff shortages but also introduce unprecedented risks to individuals.
- While robots can promote dignity by assisting with feeding, navigation, walking, and therapy, they can also threaten dignity through objectification, dehumanization, and fostering dependency.
- Existing regulatory approaches such as safety rules, data protection legislation, and technology ethics have significant shortcomings in providing comprehensive governance.
- Safety standards often lack flexibility, data protection focuses narrowly on personal data processing, and ethical frameworks lack enforceability.
- Human dignity serves as an inviolable foundational value and can act as an overarching legal framework to guide and unify the governance of robotics.
1. Introduction 2. Human Dignity 3. Robots Promoting Dignity 4. Can robots Violate Human Dignity? 5. Regulating Human–Robot Interactions for Healthcare 6. Dignity as an overarching concept for the governance of robotics 7. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Allocation of responsibility Depending on the degree of control a user has, the question of who is responsible if something goes wrong may abound
Table 1
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
and equity, non-discrimination, informed consent, private and family life and data protection.
5.1 Safety
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
5/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
we suggest human dignity as the overarching governance instrument for robotics, which is the inviolable value upon which all fundamental rights are grounded.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Nevejans (2016) argued, however, that Asimov wrote these laws in a certain moment in time, pseudo-legally, explaining how humans would remain in control if robots would take over.
5.1 Safety
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
second, how data protection rules try to regulate impacts on an individual’s privacy for safeguarding human dignity.
5 Regulating Human-Robot Interactions for Healthcare
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-24