Observational analysis highlights ethical integration and relational ontology in AI-driven caring practices, suggesting a framework for preserving dignity.
Introduction The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into caring practices has revolutionised traditional methods, offering new possibilities while raising ethical and relational challenges. AI's ability to enhance efficiency, accuracy and accessibility has driven its widespread adoption in healthcare, elder care and mental health counselling. However, concerns about its impact on the relational and ethical dimensions of caring persist, particularly given the deeply human aspects of care—intentionality, empathy and mutual recognition. Aim This study provides a framework for integrating AI into caring practices while preserving the relational, ethical and spiritual dimensions of care. Drawing from Cartesian dualism, the Theory of Communion‐in‐Caring and the Theory of Caritative Caring, it identifies actionable principles to guide AI system design that upholds compassion, dignity and interconnectedness. Methods Using a hermeneutic methodology, the study analyses theoretical contributions through a six‐step process, including immersion, open inquiry, critical dialogue, synthesis, reflective refinement and practical application. Findings Findings highlight three critical dimensions: relational ontology, which stresses the importance of AI fostering human relationships through empathy and attentiveness; ethical integration, addressing algorithmic bias, transparency and inclusivity via stakeholder engagement; and philosophical foundations, which balance Cartesian rationality with relational and spiritual perspectives to respect care's holistic nature. Conclusion By grounding AI in these principles, the study advocates for technologies that complement rather than undermine the human essence of care. It offers actionable insights to ensure that AI enhances authentic engagement, equity and dignity, contributing to an enriched caring experience in an AI‐mediated world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tuppal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: