The future is now - a new era of technology

[Perspicuo]

Well, it's going to have to be service with a smile... or make way for a hologram of Robert Picardo.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

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...

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.

 

[dx713]

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...

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.

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)

 

[gmbteach]

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.

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)

TBH, My doctor has left the practice where he was because he was overworked, (and I presume underpaid), and I will follow him. He is a good doctor and I have discovered that once a doctor knows you - YOU FUCKING WELL STICK WITH THEM... It has taken Dr M and I nearly 3 years to get to know each other in terms of my medical, hormonal and psychiatric needs, I am not changing now.

Computers do not, and will never, know us as much as the human does. PERIOD!!!

 

[Perspicuo]

gmbteach:

They used to say "Heavier than air flight is not possible." No one can say what will or will not be.

Just as dx713, I'd rather keep my high-skilled doctor, but to say computers will not know as much as a human is not necessarily true. The possibilities of big data and the entire corpus of human knowledge on health on internet far outstrips the learning and recall ability of 99% of humans at least. The possibilities of combining physicians and computer-assisted diagnosis are very great. Plus the sheer clinical ability of physicians assisted by computing will diminish greatly, by analogy to the existence of electronic calculators which have made sheer arithmetic ability much less common.

Beyond the preferable and not preferable, it is inevitable.

 

[gmbteach]

gmbteach:

They used to say "Heavier than air flight is not possible." No one can say what will or will not be.

And... I will still follow my doctor..

The connection is ???

 

[dystopian]

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.

 

[Perspicuo]

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.

Very well put, dystopian. The old doctor will be great for his intuition (conscious and non-conscious decision making) and expertise, his counselling abilities and other "human touch" skills, far after his learning capacities have passed the high point of the curve of youth to elderly obsolescence. Diagnostic cloud computation will keep his brain in constant challenge. The system will make sure his knowledge is evidence-based and up to date, and will be his life-long professor. Just as old nurses have learnt a lot of medicine just by working with a doctor, physicians will owe as much from the system as the system will have learnt from the science and practice of doctors through programming.

 

[Juma]

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.

Expert systems are already better on diagnoses than human doctors. It is just a matter of taming the physicians egos.

 

[Perspicuo]

Egos? Or objective fears of losing their jobs? Or fear of being seen as traitors by their colleagues, or of being mediocre for depending on software by them?

These are the social issues I'm concerned about. Perhaps it's a matter of time for them to go after each of our jobs. I think the Terminator movie series was correct allegorically. They're out to conquer our civilization and kill our jobs. Our hope then will be in our political economists, who will have to tax the working software and robots in order to provide for us. That will be weird and cool. My concern is about the meantime while society gets there.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

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)

I certainly don't disagree. I wouldn't want doctors eliminated. They are, and will be, needed.

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.

 

[rousseau]

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.

Interestingly, a doctor's job is usually just mapping symptoms to possible solutions. Most of my contact with doctors goes something like this:

Doctor: what's wrong?
Me: I'm experiencing this, this, and this.
Doctor: it's most probably this, but could be this and this, the treatments for x are y

When you look at the human body and the rate of evolution you have to believe that there is a somewhat finite amount of knowledge about the body. This actually makes a doctor's job ideal for automation.

At first thought most people aren't going to like the idea because the tendency is obviously *not* to trust computers, but when you think about it, if you were to make a complex mapping of medical knowledge and probability, computers would likely make medicine way more effective as well as efficient by reducing unnecessary procedures.

But again, the problem is people don't trust technology and like the human factor, so they demand people. But the only reason doctors get to become doctors in the first place is because they've earned enough trust to responsibly make important decisions, not because there is something more effective about delegating the work to a person.

 

[dx713]

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)

I certainly don't disagree. I wouldn't want doctors eliminated. They are, and will be, needed.

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.

I agree with that.
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.
Like, with a calculator, you don't need arithmetic skills, and you can use your freed time and new power to do algebra, but you must be alert enough and familiar enough with arithmetic results to notice when a result from the calculator is inconsistent, whether it's because you mistyped or because the batteries are low, or whatever.

 

[Perspicuo]

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.

 

[gmbteach]

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.

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?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[gmbteach]

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.

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?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

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 then give the doctor possible causes and suggested treatments for each possible cause of the complaint, some of the possible causes which may be unfamiliar to the doctor so could have been overlooked without the computer's data base. 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.

 

[gmbteach]

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.

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.

Ahh, then yes, perhaps I have misunderstood. I took the posts to mean that doctors would be replaced. As a tool, they are helpful. Yes. As a be-all and end-all? Nope.

 

[dystopian]

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?

False. Hook the computer up to a camera and sufficiently advanced software and it could. Or plug the patient into a future-tech full body medical scanner, probably letting it not only identify the source of the pain, but anything else wrong with you that you might not even be aware of. There is absolutely no fundamental reason why technology couldn't become advanced enough to completely replace doctors other than our baseless 'gut' feeling that we want humans involved in the process. *Will* it happen? I don't know. But it seems a tad foolish to assert that it can't or won't.

Even Star Trek's Enterprize needs McCoy between the technology and patient.

A problem Star Trek's Voyager solved by having a holographic AI be the doctor.