Tools used in the medicinal setting include X-rays, CT scans and the growing use of electronic medical records (EMR). They, among a few has helped in identifying health threats and interpreting digital information. Seemingly small, insignificant innovations such as adhesive bandages and ankle braces and larger technologies like MRI machines, artificial organs, and robotic prosthetic limbs, technology has made a positive impact on medicine. As time passes new technologies with be introduced. It is hard to picture how the negatives of technological advancements can outweigh the positives in this instance. “He asks me a question, and as soon as I begin to answer, his head is down in his laptop. …show more content…
Tap-tap-tap-tap-tap. He looks up at me to ask another question. As soon as I speak, again it’s tap-tap-tap-tap.” This was the account of a friend of Robert M. Wachter who met with his primary care doctor. He felt unsatisfied with the visit because of the fact that “a computer had entered the exam room.” On one hand I agree with the the argument that the seemingly digitalized visit was rather callous but on the other hand, I still think that integrating innovations into medical practice is one of the numerous positives of improving the quality of life. The reason being is because new technologies often bring health improvements, which is therefore seen as important. It is widely accepted that technological change has accounted for the increasing cost of medical care over time; however, it does not automatically mean that technological change is therefore a negative thing. Shown in this study, “Health has improved as medical spending has increased. Given then prevailing medical spending by age, the average newborn in 1950 could expect to spend eight-thousand in present value on medical care over his or her lifetime. The comparable amount in 1990 is forty-five thousand. An infant born in 1990 had a life expectancy that was seven years greater than that of the one born in 1950, and lower lifetime disability as well” (“Is Technological Change In Medicine Worth It?” n.d., para. 3). A series of studies were conducted not reflecting on medical costs as whole, but on the level of diseases. It was more manageable to measure costs and benefits in this format. Five conditions were analyzed: heart attacks; low-birth weight babies; depression; cataracts; and breast cancer. In the first four the cost of the technology is high but the benefits are greater, meanwhile the last condition, breast cancer was said that “however although technological change in breast cancer screening and treatment brought some benefits during our period of analysis, they are roughly equal to the costs.” In that instance technological change was neither clearly worth it nor clearly wasteful. Clearly diverging from the words said by Dr. Matt Strickland, a general surgery resident at the University of Toronto, “more and more we read about some cool gizmo that looks like it’s going to change the world, but it often never does.” In the article “Why Healthcare is still so bad,” Robert M. Wachter, headed to the headquarters of I.b.M.’s Watson team, the same people who built the computer that defeated the Jeopardy champions. He asked the lead engineer of the team, Eric Brown what the equivalent of the Jeopardy victory could be in medicine, well his answer “It’ll be when we have a technology that physicians suddenly can’t live without.” Juxtaposing Brown’s statement with Dr. Matt Strickland’s in which Strickland said “A medical technology might be a novel. It might be fun to use. But if doctors can’t answer, with great certainty, the question of whether they see themselves actually using it day to day in their work, that’s a red flag.” The question of the necessity of certain technological