D1.2 Ethics Framework
This document outlines an ethical framework for managing active and healthy aging through the use of caring service robots within the MARIO project. It evaluates existing literature and debates on care robotics, categorising ethical effects into a multi-layered framework including care integration, quality of care, functionalities, core capabilities, and dementia-specific concerns. The report provides structured ethical evaluations of MARIO use cases, robot morphology, and ICT capabilities to support responsible research and development.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This document is for roboticists, researchers, and developers designing care technologies to ensure ethical considerations are integrated throughout the development lifecycle.
What the document contains
The document addresses ethical values and concerns related to caring service robots for older adults with cognitive impairments, covering human-robot interaction, value-sensitive design, quality of care dimensions, functional capabilities, and dementia-specific ethical issues.
Binding legal enforcement mechanisms, mandatory international regulatory standards, and commercially validated long-term clinical trial outcomes.
- Care robots present a double-edged sword with both potential ethical improvements and infringements across physical, psychological, and social dimensions.
- A structured, multi-layered ethical framework is necessary to evaluate the integration of care robots into healthcare processes and quality of care dimensions.
- Dementia-specific ethical concerns require careful consideration regarding informed consent, autonomy, safety, and the prevention of infantilisation or inappropriate deception.
- The MARIO project utilises value-sensitive design to ensure robot functionalities for older people respect dignity, privacy, and personal preferences.
- Care robots should serve as assistive tools rather than complete replacements for human caregivers and meaningful human-to-human contact.
1. Introduction 2. Robotics and Elderly Care 3. Ethical Aspects of Care Robotics 4. Care Robots: Double Edged-Swords 5. Ethical Evaluation of MARIO Use Cases
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
Because they are autonomous or semi - autonomous, it is difficult to allocate blame when something goes wrong
4.3.4
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Equitable care means to ensure that the quality of care does not vary because of characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or geographic location
4.4.6
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Teleoperators can access the robot when the user is unable to or having difficulty using it themselves, so that they can remotely control it from a different location
4.5.1.3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
4/5Protection of personal data and private life
In keeping with ethical norms of confidentiality and data protection guidelines, patients should have awareness and control over who can access their personal information in order to protect their privacy
4.6.3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
users should be provided with a clear explanation of the robot’s role, abilities, and limitations
4.3.2.3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
n/a
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Before marketing a robot , it is important to identify what could possibly go wrong, whether or not the r obot’s actions will benefit patients, and what changes could occur because of their actions
4.4.2
screening score · 2026-10-23