Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Well, it's going to have to be service with a smile... or make way for a hologram of Robert Picardo.
Or alternately, it could result in fewer doctors. With technology aiding them, the remaining doctors would spend less time with each patient so increasing their patient load. More patients with each patient paying less could result in no change in the doctor's total income.We're going to pay docs LESS money and they'll retain bedside manners?the physician will just check on details and deliver bedside manners), and still, they won't be able to charge/make as much as they used to.
I think reducing the docs to on-site technicians will make them rather surly. If we ever see them...
I'd rather we retain high-skilled doctors.Or alternately, it could result in fewer doctors. With technology aiding them, the remaining doctors would spend less time with each patient so increasing their patient load. More patients with each patient paying less could result in no change in the doctor's total income.We're going to pay docs LESS money and they'll retain bedside manners?
I think reducing the docs to on-site technicians will make them rather surly. If we ever see them...
I'd rather we retain high-skilled doctors.Or alternately, it could result in fewer doctors. With technology aiding them, the remaining doctors would spend less time with each patient so increasing their patient load. More patients with each patient paying less could result in no change in the doctor's total income.
As someone working in a field where most of the computation is automated, I often notice it takes even higher skills and experience to notice there might be an error in the computation hypothesis and a need to crosscheck the computation with a different method.
I'd rather my doctor doesn't take blindly a computer's advice.
(Now, some memory helps like the computer scanning my file and the prescription in progress to warn of possible medication interactions, I'm all for it. But that's not the future, that already exists)
gmbteach:
They used to say "Heavier than air flight is not possible." No one can say what will or will not be.
Computers do not, and will never, know us as much as the human does. PERIOD!!!
Human doctors suffer from a fundamental flaw known as being human. They make mistakes; a lot of them. And the older a doctor gets, the more obsolete his knowledge becomes. Their ability to incorporate new knowledge also degrades as time passes, meaning that there's a good chance an older doctor might not be capable of providing you with the most effective treatments.
Computers do not, and will never, know us as much as the human does. PERIOD!!!
What a bizarre absolutist statement.
Human doctors suffer from a fundamental flaw known as being human. They make mistakes; a lot of them. And the older a doctor gets, the more obsolete his knowledge becomes. Their ability to incorporate new knowledge also degrades as time passes, meaning that there's a good chance an older doctor might not be capable of providing you with the most effective treatments.
Computers aren't there yet; but there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't ever become more effective at medicine than humans are.
I certainly don't disagree. I wouldn't want doctors eliminated. They are, and will be, needed.I'd rather we retain high-skilled doctors.Or alternately, it could result in fewer doctors. With technology aiding them, the remaining doctors would spend less time with each patient so increasing their patient load. More patients with each patient paying less could result in no change in the doctor's total income.
As someone working in a field where most of the computation is automated, I often notice it takes even higher skills and experience to notice there might be an error in the computation hypothesis and a need to crosscheck the computation with a different method.
I'd rather my doctor doesn't take blindly a computer's advice.
(Now, some memory helps like the computer scanning my file and the prescription in progress to warn of possible medication interactions, I'm all for it. But that's not the future, that already exists)
Computers do not, and will never, know us as much as the human does. PERIOD!!!
What a bizarre absolutist statement.
Human doctors suffer from a fundamental flaw known as being human. They make mistakes; a lot of them. And the older a doctor gets, the more obsolete his knowledge becomes. Their ability to incorporate new knowledge also degrades as time passes, meaning that there's a good chance an older doctor might not be capable of providing you with the most effective treatments.
Computers aren't there yet; but there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't ever become more effective at medicine than humans are.
I agree with that.I certainly don't disagree. I wouldn't want doctors eliminated. They are, and will be, needed.I'd rather we retain high-skilled doctors.
As someone working in a field where most of the computation is automated, I often notice it takes even higher skills and experience to notice there might be an error in the computation hypothesis and a need to crosscheck the computation with a different method.
I'd rather my doctor doesn't take blindly a computer's advice.
(Now, some memory helps like the computer scanning my file and the prescription in progress to warn of possible medication interactions, I'm all for it. But that's not the future, that already exists)
But technology is able to file and reference all medical papers, journals, research, illnesses, deseases, etc. The doctor can enter symptoms and get a printout of all possible known medical problems associated with them along with suggested courses of treatment. No doctor has the time or ability to keep up with every new work and breakthrough or even every known medical problem and treatment. The printout in hand will save many hours searching through the literature and conducting tests or even let the doctor know to look into a disorder he had not been unaware of because he had not had the time to keep up with all the journals. Of course the final diagnosis and decision on treatment should be the doctor's but a lot of the time consuming work of getting to that point would have been handled by the computer.
What I meant is that when a system automatizes some tasks, the person using the system must even be more skilled (although on a different, upper level, set of skills) to use the system instead of having the system lead them blindly.
What I meant is that when a system automatizes some tasks, the person using the system must even be more skilled (although on a different, upper level, set of skills) to use the system instead of having the system lead them blindly.
I disagree. An accountant or military engineer in 1880 was much better at the stuff people today have calculators do for them (i.e. arithmetic and elementary algebra).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think doctors will be lazy and useless appendages of computers, but there will be cons in addition to the pros. Take for example other technological revolutions in medical diagnosis we already have had: x-rays. I guess there was some sort of procedures that have been lost to the ages because now they take them. Who is suffering miserably because of it? We'll be alright.
P.S. Oh I see. I had to read it thrice. Now I believe you're thinking just as I do.
Some of what you describe is certainly true. However, in the event of increased computer assistance, you should see less such problems that some of your concerns address. Your personal medical history would, of course, be included in your computer medical file. If you are allergic to or have adverse reactions to some particular medication then that would be noted in your personal file. The computer would be unlikely to miss it but your doctor could if rushed, involved in some other crisis, hung over, thinking of going fishing, rushing to make his tee time, distracted by how hot his new nurse is, or just forgets.I disagree. An accountant or military engineer in 1880 was much better at the stuff people today have calculators do for them (i.e. arithmetic and elementary algebra).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think doctors will be lazy and useless appendages of computers, but there will be cons in addition to the pros. Take for example other technological revolutions in medical diagnosis we already have had: x-rays. I guess there was some sort of procedures that have been lost to the ages because now they take them. Who is suffering miserably because of it? We'll be alright.
P.S. Oh I see. I had to read it thrice. Now I believe you're thinking just as I do.
I agree that some skill sets will need to change when technology changes. Such as typing and hitting Centre on your word processing program rather than counting the number of letters and working out where you need to start from.
However, my comment about doctors is this. A machine cannot 'get to know you', cannot take into account 'your quirks'. My doctor knows the medications I am on, which ones are more effective, what I am allergic too etc. If I was prescribed the 'best' medication as determined by a machine, my depression and anxiety would still be quite bad. If I was prescribed the 'most effective known antibiotic for this condition' I would spend my recovery time suffering from the side effects.
A doctor doesn't just treat the condition, he treats the person as a whole. Can a computer program do that?
Some of what you describe is certainly true. However, in the event of increased computer assistance, you should see less such problems that some of your concerns address. Your personal medical history would, of course, be included in your computer medical file. If you are allergic to or have adverse reactions to some particular medication then that would be noted in your personal file. The computer would be unlikely to miss it but your doctor could if rushed, involved in some other crisis, hung over, thinking of going fishing, rushing to make his tee time, distracted by how hot his new nurse is, or just forgets.I agree that some skill sets will need to change when technology changes. Such as typing and hitting Centre on your word processing program rather than counting the number of letters and working out where you need to start from.
However, my comment about doctors is this. A machine cannot 'get to know you', cannot take into account 'your quirks'. My doctor knows the medications I am on, which ones are more effective, what I am allergic too etc. If I was prescribed the 'best' medication as determined by a machine, my depression and anxiety would still be quite bad. If I was prescribed the 'most effective known antibiotic for this condition' I would spend my recovery time suffering from the side effects.
A doctor doesn't just treat the condition, he treats the person as a whole. Can a computer program do that?
I think we are assuming different roles for the computer. I am looking at it as an aid to the doctor, not the only source of medical advice. Even Star Trek's Enterprize needs McCoy between the technology and patient.Some of what you describe is certainly true. However, in the event of increased computer assistance, you should see less such problems that some of your concerns address. Your personal medical history would, of course, be included in your computer medical file. If you are allergic to or have adverse reactions to some particular medication then that would be noted in your personal file. The computer would be unlikely to miss it but your doctor could if rushed, involved in some other crisis, hung over, thinking of going fishing, rushing to make his tee time, distracted by how hot his new nurse is, or just forgets.
Okay, would a computer think to prescribe an anti-depressant to a woman that is actually better for men? I just don't think the computer could do the job as effectively as a human doctor could.
Another example is: you go into the doctor because you have a pain on your body. It hurts in one particular spot. You don't know the medical term for that particular spot. How would you convey that to a computer? You can't just say 'It hurts here' like you would a doctor. True?
I think we are assuming different roles for the computer. I am looking at it as an aid to the doctor, not the only source of medical advice. Even Star Trek's Enterprize needs McCoy between the technology and patient.Okay, would a computer think to prescribe an anti-depressant to a woman that is actually better for men? I just don't think the computer could do the job as effectively as a human doctor could.
Another example is: you go into the doctor because you have a pain on your body. It hurts in one particular spot. You don't know the medical term for that particular spot. How would you convey that to a computer? You can't just say 'It hurts here' like you would a doctor. True?
The way I am looking at it, the computer would have information about the relative usefulness of a drug between men and women and would have in your medical file that you were female so would suggest treatment accordingly to the doctor. With the "it hurts here" situation, the doctor would describe the symptoms in medical terms to the computer. The computer would consult its data base and your personal medical file and give the doctor possible causes and suggested treatments for each cause, some of possible causes which may be unfamiliar to the doctor. The doctor would then make the final diagnosis and select the proper treatment.
I wasn't suggesting taking the doctor out of the loop, only using technology so he can make a more accurate diagnosis quickly without him having to dig through piles of literature hopefully to find the right cause for the problem. Unfortunately, no doctor knows all the possible medical problems and their recommended treatments that can be found in a medical data base. However, the computer wouldn't be needed at all or even helpful to diagnose and treat a broken bone or bad cut. But the attending doctor should enter the information about the problem into the patient's personal medical file in the computer for future reference.
Another example is: you go into the doctor because you have a pain on your body. It hurts in one particular spot. You don't know the medical term for that particular spot. How would you convey that to a computer? You can't just say 'It hurts here' like you would a doctor. True?
skepticalbib said:Even Star Trek's Enterprize needs McCoy between the technology and patient.