Robotic Surgeries Vs Traditional Surgeries: An Rhetorical Analysis The topic of robotic surgeries compared to open surgeries and their costs has been a debate since 1983 when the first robotic-assisted surgery was introduced (Background). This debate is brought up and analyzed in Gabriel Barbash, M.D. and Sherry Glied Ph.D article entitled “New Technology and Health Care Costs –The Case of Robot-Assisted Surgery,” and was published in the highly renowned New England Journal of Medicine. This article was written in 2010 when there was a huge debate going on over the usefulness of da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery (Robotics). Da Vinci is “powered by robotic technology that allows the surgeon’s hand movements to be translated into smaller,
…show more content…
The medical field in 2010 was heavily debating if robotic surgery was “an innovative technique with wide applications or mainly a marketing ploy to attract patients? Or does the truth lie somewhere between these views?” (Robotics). The authors agreed with one side of the debate and effectively backed up their stance, that robotic surgery is “mainly a marketing ploy to attract patients,” with surgical, robotic and procedure data that matched that of many hospitals in the United States at the time the article was written. These stats included “The number of robotic-assisted procedures that are preformed worldwide has nearly tripled since 2007, from 80,000 to 205,000” this line of thinking agreed with many doctors in 2010. Many doctors believed that robotic-assisted surgery only increased the volume of surgeries performed and cost of surgery and had no to little patient benefits (Barbash and Glied). Barbash and Glied say that “various nonsurgical treatment alternatives… exist” the authors argue that surgery, specifically robotic surgery, isn’t always the best form of treatment (Barbash and Glied). The authors effectively persuade the readers to accept their claim using statistics in their article however they leave little room for the robotic field to grow or improve. I however don’t agree with the authors claim that robotic surgery is not any better than open …show more content…
When the reader takes in these key benefits they would go against the authors claim because they see that robotic-assisted surgeries indeed have many benefits over that of open surgeries and in the long run tend to be cheaper. Not only do robotic-assisted surgeries tend to be cheaper, which was a big argument the authors had was that robotic-assisted surgeries cost more, but surgeries also tend to have a “lower chance of readmission for complications” after surgery (Pinkerton). Combine the authors ignorance of the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery with the authors lack of specific surgical experiences and the article starts to loses its power and readers in a sea of surgical, robotic and procedure data. The authors could have included some specific data from patients and doctors that have been through a robotic-assisted surgery to really drive home their claim and persuade the readers to accept their claim, however their lack of pathos and their moments of robotic-assisted surgery optimism drove the readers to doubt their claim that robotic surgery is not any better than open surgery; robotic surgery is only more expensive and steer patients toward surgical
The medical field in 2010 was heavily debating if robotic surgery was “an innovative technique with wide applications or mainly a marketing ploy to attract patients? Or does the truth lie somewhere between these views?” (Robotics). The authors agreed with one side of the debate and effectively backed up their stance, that robotic surgery is “mainly a marketing ploy to attract patients,” with surgical, robotic and procedure data that matched that of many hospitals in the United States at the time the article was written. These stats included “The number of robotic-assisted procedures that are preformed worldwide has nearly tripled since 2007, from 80,000 to 205,000” this line of thinking agreed with many doctors in 2010. Many doctors believed that robotic-assisted surgery only increased the volume of surgeries performed and cost of surgery and had no to little patient benefits (Barbash and Glied). Barbash and Glied say that “various nonsurgical treatment alternatives… exist” the authors argue that surgery, specifically robotic surgery, isn’t always the best form of treatment (Barbash and Glied). The authors effectively persuade the readers to accept their claim using statistics in their article however they leave little room for the robotic field to grow or improve. I however don’t agree with the authors claim that robotic surgery is not any better than open …show more content…
When the reader takes in these key benefits they would go against the authors claim because they see that robotic-assisted surgeries indeed have many benefits over that of open surgeries and in the long run tend to be cheaper. Not only do robotic-assisted surgeries tend to be cheaper, which was a big argument the authors had was that robotic-assisted surgeries cost more, but surgeries also tend to have a “lower chance of readmission for complications” after surgery (Pinkerton). Combine the authors ignorance of the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery with the authors lack of specific surgical experiences and the article starts to loses its power and readers in a sea of surgical, robotic and procedure data. The authors could have included some specific data from patients and doctors that have been through a robotic-assisted surgery to really drive home their claim and persuade the readers to accept their claim, however their lack of pathos and their moments of robotic-assisted surgery optimism drove the readers to doubt their claim that robotic surgery is not any better than open surgery; robotic surgery is only more expensive and steer patients toward surgical