Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3/2018

Open Access 01-09-2018 | Scientific Contribution

How to respond to resistiveness towards assistive technologies among persons with dementia

Author: Anders Nordgren

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

It is a common experience among care professionals that persons with dementia often say ‘no’ to conventional caring measures such as taking medication, eating or having a shower. This tendency to say ‘no’ may also concern the use of assistive technologies such as fall detectors, mobile safety alarms, Internet for social contact and robots. This paper provides practical recommendations for care professionals in home health care and social care about how to respond to such resistiveness towards assistive technologies. Apart from the option of accepting the ‘no’, it discusses a number of methods for influencing persons with dementia in order to overcome the ‘no’. These methods range from various non-coercive measures—including nudging—to coercion. It is argued that while conventional caring measures like those mentioned are essential for survival, health or hygiene, assistive technologies are commonly merely potentially beneficial supplements. With this in mind, it is concluded that care professionals should be more restrictive in using methods of influence involving some degree of pressure regarding assistive technologies than regarding conventional caring measures.
Literature
Agich, G. J. 1990. Reassessing autonomy in long-term care. Hastings Center Report 20 (6): 12–17.CrossRef
Agich, G. J. 2003. Dependence and autonomy in old age: An ethical framework for long-term care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Beachamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., L. B. McCullough, H. Krieger, and J. Coverdale. 2013. Methods of influencing the decisions of psychiatric patients: An ethical analysis. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 21 (5): 275–279.CrossRef
Bolmsjö, I. Å., A. -K. Edberg, and L. Sandman. 2006. Everyday ethical problems in dementia care: A teleological model. Nursing Ethics 13 (4): 340–359.CrossRef
Chaudhury, H., and G. D. Rowles. 2005. Between the shores of recollection and imagination: Self, aging and home. In Home and identity in late life: International perspectives, eds. G. D. Rowles, and H. H. Chaudhury, New York: Springer.
Cohen, S. 2013. Nudging and informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics 13 (6): 3–11.CrossRef
Cotten, S. R., W. A. Anderson, and B. M. McCullough. 2013. Impact of Internet use on loneliness and contact with others among older adults: Cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15 (2): e39.CrossRef
Dekkers, W. 2011. Dwelling, house and home: Towards a home-led perspective on dementia care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14: 291–300.CrossRef
Fauth, E. B., E. E. Femia, and S. H. Zarit. 2015. Resistiveness to care during associations of daily living in non-institutionalized persons with dementia: Associations with informal caregivers’ stress and well-being. Aging and Mental Health 20 (9): 888–898.CrossRef
Fellows, L. K. 1998. Competency and consent in dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 46: 922–926.CrossRef
Finkelstein, S., S. Speedie, and S. Potthoff. 2006. Home telehealth improves clinical outcomes at lower cost for home healthcare. Telemedicine and Health 12 (2): 128–136.CrossRef
Ganyo, M., M. Dunn, and T. Hope. 2011. Ethical issues in the use of fall detectors. Ageing and Society 31 (8): 1350–1367.CrossRef
Gordijn, B., and H. ten Have. 2016. Technology and dementia. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 19 (3): 339–340.CrossRef
Hofmann, B. 2013. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Science and Engineering Ethics 19: 389–406.CrossRef
Holm, S. 2001. Autonomy, authenticity, or best interest: Everyday decision-making and persons with dementia. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4: 153–159.CrossRef
Ishii, S., J. E. Streim, and D. Saliba. 2012. A conceptual framework for rejection of care: Review of literature and analysis of role of dementia severity. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 13: 11–23.CrossRef
Landau, R., and S. Werner. 2012. Ethical aspects of using GPS for tracking people with dementia: Recommendations for practice. International Psychogeriatrics 24 (3): 358–366.CrossRef
Landau, R., G. K. Auslander, S. Werner, N. Shoval, and J. Heinik. 2011. Who should make the decision on the use of GPS for people with dementia? Aging and Mental Health 15 (1): 78–84.CrossRef
Mahoney, E. K., A. C. Hurley, L. Volicer, M. Bell, P. Gianotis, M. Hartshorn, P. Lane, R. Lesperance, S. MacDonald, L. Novakoff, Y. Rheaume, R. Timms, and V. Warden. 1999. Development and testing of the resistiveness to care scale. Research in Nursing and Health 22: 27–38.CrossRef
McLean, A. 2011. Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: Cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics and Information Technology 13: 313–326.CrossRef
Niemeijer, A. R., B. J. M. Frederiks, I. I. Riphagen, J. Legemaate, J. A. Eefsting, and C. M. P. M. Hertogh. 2010. Ethical and practical concerns of surveillance technologies in residential care for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities: An overview of the literature. International Psychogeriatrics 22 (7): 1129–1142.CrossRef
Niemeijer, A. R., M. F. I. A. Depla, B. J. M. Frederiks, and C. M. P. M. Hertogh. 2015. The experiences of people with dementia and intellectual disabilities with surveillance technologies in residential care. Nursing Ethics 22 (3): 307–320.CrossRef
Nordgren, A. 2013. Personal health monitoring: Ethical considerations for stakeholders. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 11 (3): 156–173.CrossRef
Nordgren, A. 2014. Remote monitoring or close encounters? Ethical considerations in priority setting regarding telecare. Health Care Analysis 22 (4): 325–339.CrossRef
Novitzky, P., A. F. Smeaton, C. Chen, K. Irving, T. Jacquemard, F. O’Brolcháin, D. O’Mathúna, and B. Gordijn. 2015. A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia. Science and Engineering Ethics 21: 707–765.CrossRef
Perry, J., S. Beyer, and S. Holm. 2009. Assistive technology, telecare and people with intellectual disabilities: Ethical considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 81–86.CrossRef
Saghai, Y. 2013. Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 487–493.CrossRef
Sharkey, A., and N. Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1): 27–40.CrossRef
Smebye, K. L., M. Kirkevold, and K. Engedal. 2016. Ethical dilemmas concerning autonomy when persons with dementia wish to live at home: A qualitative, hermeneutic study. BMC Health Services Research 16: 21–32.CrossRef
Sorell, T., and H. Draper. 2014. Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology 16: 183–195.CrossRef
Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Books.
Tranvåg, O., K. A. Petersen, and D. Nåden. 2013. Dignity-preserving dementia: A metasynthesis. Nursing Ethics 20 (8): 861–880.CrossRef
Volicer, L., and E. Vongxaiburana. 2009. Behavioral symptoms of dementia. In Hallucinations: Types, stages and treatments, ed. M. S. Payne, Chap. 9, 1–15. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Widdershoven, G., and R. Berghmans. 2007. Coercion and pressure in psychiatry: Lessons from ulysses. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 560–563.CrossRef
Williams, K. N., R. Herman, B. Gajewski, and K. Wilson. 2009. Elderspeak communication: Impact on dementia care. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias 24 (1): 11–20.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How to respond to resistiveness towards assistive technologies among persons with dementia
Author
Anders Nordgren
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9816-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3/2018 Go to the issue

Editorial

RETRACTED ARTICLE: What it means to care for a person with a chronic disease: integrating the patient’s experience into the medical viewpoint

Scientific Contribution

Debating social egg freezing: arguments from phases of life

Scientific Contribution

Relieving one’s relatives from the burdens of care

Scientific Contribution

Incentivized goodness

Scientific Contribution

Science fiction and human enhancement: radical life-extension in the movie ‘In Time’ (2011)

Scientific Contribution

Heidegger, communication, and healthcare