A 26-year-old dental student in Connecticut died in an intensive care unit that was overseen by a remote "tele-health" doctor who pronounced him dead on a video screen, a lawsuit says.
See, when I first started hearing of those remote control surgical robots, it was sold to me like “They’re for remote places where you can’t quickly get to a metropolitan hospital, like the South Pole research station, or Nome Alaska, or the space station. Someone in Nome goes down with gallstones in the winter, getting them to Anchorage may be a problem, this would allow a doctor to remote in care that wouldn’t otherwise be available.”
See you’re just thinking of pro-social applications for tech. Nothing wrong with that. One day the world will be better and we’ll need creativity and positivity rather than nihilism. In the meantime, some cynicism is warranted.
Based on what I’m reading, the problem was he wasn’t administered benzodiazapines for the withdrawal symptoms. This combined with alcohol induced organ damage were contributing factors.
I feel as though most doctors would have been reluctant to prescribe a sedative. The more liberal they are with prescribing sedatives, the more likely their practice is to be overwhelmed with drug addicts.
…it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
The issue is that these surgical robots are a goldmine for companies specializing in medical devices. I work for one. They look fancy, they’re available to buy on loan if you can’t afford the several million dollars, and they sound modern.
Meanwhile, the instruments are not cross-compatible (meaning you can’t run Medtronic instruments on a US Medtech robot, for instance), so while they’re reusable and sterilizable (unlike most other handheld devices which are designed to be one-case-only), you have to buy a whole suite of endocutters, staplers, and whatever else you want that robot to be able to do in order to make it do that. PLUS there’s a proprietary computer system, an imaging system, the software to run those, often a televisual rig at the other end for the surgeon to run…you can get really pricey for these, real quick, and that’s not to mention the staple cartridges, the trocars, all sorts of stuff that can be proprietary.
See, when I first started hearing of those remote control surgical robots, it was sold to me like “They’re for remote places where you can’t quickly get to a metropolitan hospital, like the South Pole research station, or Nome Alaska, or the space station. Someone in Nome goes down with gallstones in the winter, getting them to Anchorage may be a problem, this would allow a doctor to remote in care that wouldn’t otherwise be available.”
That was, of course, bullshit.
See you’re just thinking of pro-social applications for tech. Nothing wrong with that. One day the world will be better and we’ll need creativity and positivity rather than nihilism. In the meantime, some cynicism is warranted.
Wasn’t me doing the thinking, that’s what I was told this tech was developed for.
It wasn’t. It was designed to kill a dental student in an ICU devoid of actual medical professionals.
I’d wager a guess that the designer had what you described in mind, but someone else did not.
Based on what I’m reading, the problem was he wasn’t administered benzodiazapines for the withdrawal symptoms. This combined with alcohol induced organ damage were contributing factors.
I feel as though most doctors would have been reluctant to prescribe a sedative. The more liberal they are with prescribing sedatives, the more likely their practice is to be overwhelmed with drug addicts.
…it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
No, that was the pitch. I remember it just like you do.
It just…isn’t working like that right now.
Doesn’t mean the technology can’t do that. Just means there’s capitalism in the way.
“This is the song that never ends…it just goes on and on my friend”
The issue is that these surgical robots are a goldmine for companies specializing in medical devices. I work for one. They look fancy, they’re available to buy on loan if you can’t afford the several million dollars, and they sound modern.
Meanwhile, the instruments are not cross-compatible (meaning you can’t run Medtronic instruments on a US Medtech robot, for instance), so while they’re reusable and sterilizable (unlike most other handheld devices which are designed to be one-case-only), you have to buy a whole suite of endocutters, staplers, and whatever else you want that robot to be able to do in order to make it do that. PLUS there’s a proprietary computer system, an imaging system, the software to run those, often a televisual rig at the other end for the surgeon to run…you can get really pricey for these, real quick, and that’s not to mention the staple cartridges, the trocars, all sorts of stuff that can be proprietary.