>Robots vs. Anesthesiologists
>Anesthesiologists, who are among the highest-paid physicians, have long fought people in health care who target their specialty to curb costs. Now the doctors are confronting a different kind of foe: machines.
>A new system called Sedasys, made by Johnson & Johnson, would automate the sedation of many patients undergoing colon-cancer screenings called colonoscopies. That could take anesthesiologists out of the room, eliminating a big source of income for the doctors. More than $1 billion is spent each year sedating patients undergoing otherwise painful colonoscopies, according to a RAND Corp. study that J&J sponsored.
>An anesthesiologist’s involvement typically adds $600 to $2,000 to the procedure’s cost, according to a research letter published online by JAMA Internal Medicine in July.
>By contrast, Sedasys would cost about $150 a procedure, according to people familiar with J&J’s pricing plans.
>Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla thinks the best way to improve health care is to get rid of most doctors.
>Human judgment simply cannot compete against machine-learning systems that derive predictions from millions of data points, Khosla told an audience Friday, the third and final day of Stanford University School of Medicine’s Big Data in Biomedicine Conference.
>But Khosla devoted his hour-long keynote speech Friday to his long-held belief that technology will replace 80 to 90 percent of doctors’ role in the decision-making process. His is one interpretation of the implications of big data — the popular term for the massive volumes of digital information generated by electronic health records, genetic sequencing, clinical trials and other sources.
>“I don’t agree with 80 percent of your remarks,” one clinician told him.
>Khosla acknowledged his view is often not a popular one, but did not back down.
>“Humans are not good when 500 variables affect a disease. We can handle three to five to seven, maybe,” he said. “We are guided too much by opinions, not by statistical science.”
So CS will basically eliminate the need for most of the MDs.
Fuck yes. I hate doctors so much.
>Just come to my office, we can fit you in next February. I'll have my secretary make a note so I can keep you waiting for two hours and then spend five minutes with you, glance at your chart while I half-listen to you and think about what I'm going to have for supper, then prescribe you some medicine that doesn't have anything to do with your problem and makes you impotent. My life is awesome since my powerful and respected professional organization opposes every effort to keep me from being the undersupplied bottleneck to your healthcare.
That's cute but no. They might replace nurse anesthetists though I guess but these complicated OR robots have abysmal track records. Just look at the de vinci for OB (and that's a robot controlled by a doctor, it looks like this thing doesn't even have that).
Sounds like you have some regrets in life.
Wasn't the whole point of anesthesiologists that each person required a specific amount of anesthetic?
Also, I imagine a machine would have tremendous failure rates if it was even a year outdated. Can you say proprietary hardware/software?
>Wasn't the whole point of anesthesiologists that each person required a specific amount of anesthetic?
Yah, and it's based on pulse rate, respiration rate, and by proxy blood O2, and BP. That's pretty much it. It being that simple is the only reason anesthesiologists can even do what they do. If it involved balancing like 20 variables, they would just kill most people, while a machine would trivially find the correct deltas across 20 variables, let alone something as simple as 4. Come to think of it, it's probably something you could cobble together over a weekend in a garage, so it's pretty much the AMA holding shit back as usual vs technically complexity or uncertainty in outcomes. Even with just 4 variables to balance, they still manage to euthanize people, machines won't.
Machines for doing that sort of stuff aren't that far out. In 20-30 years you can pretty much guarantee largely autonomous robots will be doing a lot of medical work. The machinery itself either exists and/or is mostly an issue of engineering for costs. The decision-making is in the works, IBM's Watson, for instance, is actually partly aimed at handling insurance case review, and while the software and hardware aren't quite there for doing clinical work, it probably wont take more than a decade or two for them to get to the point where they can actually compete with a human being in a clinical setting.
If it didn't need to be customized, they wouldn't be making a machine, but just having nurses give patients injections.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to happen in medicine for quality to improve and costs to come down. Depending on the individual talent of doctors is an absolutely terrible way to provide fast-advancing scientific medicine to the whole population.
>anaesthesiology is 99% brain-destroying boredom and 1% brain-destroying fuck-ups
For every heroic effort by an anesthesiologist to save a patient when something weird happens, I guarantee you two are killed by their errors doing totally routine things to patients responding in totally predictable ways.
Bring on the machines.
It's weird, but in every field in medicine so far which has integrated any degree of robotics, the doctors using those techniques only saw their wage rise. Suddenly they aren't wasting time for manual labor, pulling surgeries or catheterizations quickly and efficiently, they use their time for securing more surgeries,advising, helping companies develop the robotics further with their feedback, etc.
BASED Johnson & Johnson
Honestly some doctors just wanna face that their work is going to be automated in the future, and the very cushy incomes they created by guild structure will fall all the way down down down.
>Bring on the machines.
What will happen is that the anesthesiologist uses some computer interface to control the robot.
Also, there's more than just knocking people out for surgery. Pain control like nerve blocks and various minor anesthetic things are on their job lists too.
Would you rather have an AI algorithm constantly adjust your anesthesia by constantly measuring your vitals every fraction of the second or do you think a human can do something like that better?
We should welcome our machine overlords into the OR. Imagine how much more efficient and BETTER a machine can be than a human when it comes to things like that.
And I'd rather have something like IBM's Watson do my diagnosis than a human. Sure, human can double check it but Watson can do a MUCH BETTER job!
>Wasn't the whole point of anesthesiologists that each person required a specific amount of anesthetic?
Yes, and machine can do that much better than a human.
>Also, I imagine a machine would have tremendous failure rates if it was even a year outdated.
Nonsense. It's not like statistics changes every year. They can tweak it, for sure, but the machine will work just fine without any updates.
>Can you say proprietary hardware/software?
Stallman the Commie, please go to North Korea or China.
>adjust your anesthesia by constantly measuring your vitals every fraction of the second
Humans are not precise digital machines, there's no ultra-fine adjustments to make for something with systemic effects like anesthesia. Also, sensors are only so reliable. EKG artifacts are extremely common, breathing isn't perfectly regular. O2 saturation drifts back and forth a few percent even with a patient just lying conscious on a table.
Also, the additional cost of anesthesiologists isn't that much when hospitals in the US bill you hundreds of dollars for a bag of saline solution.
Also, the anesthesiologist is very useful in situations when shit hits the fan as he can intube and manage patient vitals well. Something most doctors working outside of emergency medicine isn't all that good at because lack of practice.
>Why would you think that that all an anaesthesiologist does is administer sedatives? There's a reason they get paid what they do.
I was shocked when I learned that anesthesiologists are paid more than almost any other MD. I just couldn't believe it. They really don't do much at all. They should definitely be replaced.
>There's a reason they get paid what they do.
The reason they get paid what they do is because they pay the highest malpractice insurance, not because their job is the most difficult.
It's also because it's boring, which means there are never enough of them. It probably hasn't helped that a lot of prospective MDs are doubtful of the long-term prospects of the specialty, since it's a rather obvious opportunity for automation.
There are a very limited number of slots in the programs you have to go through to become an MD, which are awarded through a largely competitive process. However, there's considerable freedom to choose one's specialty (or to default to general practice).
So the hot shots that get through generally want some combination of interesting, glamorous, and lucrative. Options like anesthesiology and general practice tend to get undersupplied.
>be the future
>be not Anesthesiologists
>nobody bes any longer
>be in need of a machines for every OP
>be in need of closed source software
>be in lack of knowledge
>be forever dependent on closed source
>be fucked up
>be the future
People who reasonably fear automation of their jobs:
1) people who aren't very trainable and can't easily learn a new job,
2) people who invested ~10 years and went into heavy debt getting qualified for their job.
It's entirely predictable that doctors are opposed to automation of any part of their jobs, it's also entirely despicable for them to stand in the way of better, cheaper healthcare, as they've been doing for decades.
a book doesn't give you any experience. it gives you concepts but if you try to apply read knowledge you are tackling a problem exceeding book knowledge.
in other words, does a recipe make you cook?
>a book doesn't give you any experience. it gives you concepts but if you try to apply read knowledge you are tackling a problem exceeding book knowledge.
Using Excel doesn't make you an accountant. And yet you don't see a single accountant boycotting Excel.
Oh, so people should die because you need practice?
If the machine gets it right and a human gets it right 99% of the time (I'm being generous here, errors are a lot more common), you're saying that it's OK for this 1% to die?
Would the machine have some kind of personalized, baseline data? Because if it's based on population statistics, into the trash.
Also who would have access on these data? How would you ensure safety? What if insurance companies got a hold of them? What about human intuition, without clinical signs?
Fuck I hate doctors, but dumping the final decision into a machine, without any human intervention for all cases is stupid. Not to mention that the tools to analyze meaningfully all those data don't exist yet.
Dude, the machine is extensively tested. Proper dosing of anesthesia is not rocket science. It's a simple formula. And machines can respond instantaneously to any changes in your vitals. Humans cannot.
>Would the machine have some kind of personalized, baseline data? Because if it's based on population statistics, into the trash.
Why the fuck would it have less information than a human doctor?
I am not an anesthesiologist, I just raised some of my concerns. Judging from anaesthesia in animals for research purposes, it's not rocket science, but it's neither easily replaceable.
Because that's what big data is, huge amounts of data on population level.
Because shit coding is unheard of? Yeah ok I get what you mean, but to me it is still a valid concern.
That's how you'd develop it, obviously, but for it to save money at some point you have to take the supervising doctor away. Otherwise you just have an expensive device for making anesthesiologists even more bored.
I'm not that guy, but the way big data and machine learning works is more or less like linear regression on steroids. Essentially the algorithms run on a purely objective "intuition".
Honestly, this is probably the one thing which will remain human for a while. Robots can't feel pain, pain is statistically unquantifiable, and giving too little sedatives can result in autonomic response rendering an operation fatal.
An anesthesiologist learns how much pain a person can take vs how much sedative their body can take. This is what makes them so important. A robot giving a set amount of morphine to 10 patients will probably result in 0 patients actually being sedated, and if the same dosage is doubled, all 10 may die.
tldr robots a shit and so is J&J
>Honestly, this is probably the one thing which will remain human for a while.
No it won't. Anesthesiology will be one of the first branches of medicine that will be automated. Surgeons will last a bit longer.
>Judging from anaesthesia (sp) in animals for research purposes, it's not rocket science, but it's neither easily replaceable.
We thought that CPR is not easily replaceable with machines and now defibrillator machines are common and the best at reviving a stopped heart.
More honest white men out of the job , again.
I honestly would prefer this. I moved to Canada and it seems that every doctor out here ascribes to some sort of ridiculous alternative medicine belief. Being told to try "yoga" or "meditation" by a physician is retarded.
They're highest paid for a reason: in any OR, the one who actually knows his shit front and backwards in greek is the Anesthesiologist.
If anyone was going to be replaced in an OR, the last person I would suspect would be the Anesthesiologist.
- source: i'm a math guy
>so it's pretty much the AMA holding shit back as usual vs technically complexity or uncertainty in outcomes.
Posters like this always make me wonder- are you guys aware that there are countries outside of america? The AMA cant do shit about what goes on in, say, japan, where if they could cobble together a machine like this they would. The AMA are simply not that big an obstruction, it just seems like that to you because you live in the USA.
How you got that from his post is beyond me. If a physician proscribes yoga or meditation, he is right to question there authority. A rigorous exercise routine, brushing your teeth, eating right are all examples of taking care of your own health, with tons of support in the peer reviewed literature. Yoga and meditation have no such support.
how does this machine gets a venous / arterial access ? who performs an intubation in case of respiratory failure ? how can it seamlessly collaborate with the surgeon during emergencies or just during unexpected procedures ?
Fucking finally, how else are we gonna free up enough doctors to do our transhumanist style limb and internal organ replacements?
More capacity in fucking hospitals doesn't mean doctors suddenly go out of work, it means more people can get proper care.
Healthcare costs are basically a black hole, there is no "enough" spending, just incremental improvements compared to past practices.
>We thought that CPR is not easily replaceable with machines and now defibrillator machines are common and the best at reviving a stopped heart
who ever thought that, beside you ? any doctor knows that CPR is a desperate measure and very rarely ever saves a life. But sometimes it does and therefore we do it.
>If a physician proscribes yoga or meditation, he is right to question there authority.
I'm assuming he has high blood pressure, is a choleric fat fuck, and doesn't like to move, and so hasn't done any sports since ages.
In this case there isn't anything wrong with yoga. You shouldn't do hipster yoga course, and you should practice according to your abilities. From there you can improve. Rigorous exercise wouldn't be of any help if you aren't used to to exercises, he'd stop earlier, as he probably is a lazy assed bastard.
You can do this by using common sense.
Define intuition. depending on the definition, it's a response to a stimulus with the inability of retracing the logical steps that caused the response. effectively it's a "fast response". if a machien cannot differentiate between states that human intuition can compare, it lacks an unapparent sensory input. you simply need to investigate what the human is acting on.
on Big Data:
big data refers to a large knowledge base. you take samples from a large population, and try to categorize it. when you get your patient, you try to fit that patient into a specific category, and use that to make extrapolations based on past events. it's basically the same thing as human experience.
example: the patient is morbidly obese, has aids, is gay, black, and sceduled for a colonoscopy.
big data fits this patient and then realizes that past obese, black, gay aids-ridden patients have a thicker colon wall, so you need to get out the big scope with the strong flash.
if you are a doctor in a swiss mountain region you'd be wondering why you're not getting good readings and you'll have to book a second appointment to redo the procedure.
>Yoga and meditation have no such support
don't make me whip out my pubmed and shove it into your ignorant butt.
people in their mid 30s-40s often suffer under consistent stress, which results in over-eating, anxiety, and all the other shit that comes with that.
indeed, behavior is psychologic. who would have thought? a prescribed form of daily relaxation definitely can't help alleviate some of their issues, you're right.
About sensors being only so reliable, the current anesthesiologist also use those sensors, so I don't see how that's any different? Having noise or periodicty in data is nothing new, we can handle that, why would you assume that the machine would only base it's actions on the current sensor input instead of on the current and past sensor input?
So is 6 months longer or shorter than the wait time for a dentist in America if you have average American insurance (That is: No insurance or inadequate coverage)?
Also, Jesus, get a load of them weasel-words:
>where you sometimes wait up to 6 months
"Sometimes" and "up to" ? That is an AMAZING performance compared to a system where you "Often" wait "Forever" for help because you cannot afford it.
I waited 6 months for a dentist in europe
I waited 2 days for a dentist in the us
i pay twice the taxes I do in europe than I do in the us
i chose to invest in a decent health insurance that still comes down to less than EU taxes with US taxes.
Wrong on all counts, pic related.
Americans spend by far the most on healthcare and get worse care than civilized countries.
>2) That you, personally, are wealthy enough to afford decent insurance does not mean that your countrymen, on average, are.
if you have a college education in something other than art you can afford decent health insurance.
if you have a college education you are in some cases better off in the US.
>if you have a college education in something other than art you can afford decent health insurance.
1) Not true.
but more importantly,
2) The fact that you CAN afford it doesn't mean it is somehow desirable to pay twice as much for comparable or worse care. This is basic stuff, anon.
Did the US suddenly start giving out free college educations to people or did you just bring up a completely irrelevant point?
We're not talking about health care in a Perfect World, we're talking about health care as-is. And as-is, US health care is not available to average US citizens, which means average US health care is shit tier.
>anesthesiologist learns how much pain a person can take vs how much sedative their body can take
Robots will be vastly superior, will rely on a large body current evidence and also do it with more precision, faster and cheaper than a anaesthesiologist who learnt it from med school 15 years ago.
>Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates isn’t going to sugarcoat things: The increasing power of automation technology is going to put a lot of people out of work. Business Insider reports that Gates gave a talk at the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington, DC this week and said that both governments and businesses need to start preparing for a future where lots of people will be put out of work by software and robots.
>“Software substitution, whether it’s for drivers or waiters or nurses… it’s progressing,” Gates said. “Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set… 20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don’t think people have that in their mental model.”
Ultimately, we're going to have to shift to an investment/farming model of income for the average man. You'll have your little patch of land, and you'll have your solar panels and your Santa Claus machine, and that will provide for your needs, like a high-tech subsistence farmer.
And the government will have its road allowances connecting all of the individual patches of land, and it will have its solar panels and Santa Claus machines, and these will pay for a free communication and transportation network.
Once robots do all of the work, you just need your share of the robots and the land.
Basic health insurance + dentist coverage is like EUR 25 a month over here. When I call my dentist and tell him (for example) I have a toothache, I can get an appointment for the next day. If it's really bad I can go to a hospital and go to their dentists.
Of course you can't compare northern and western master-Europe to eastern/southern shitty Europe (inb4 gb2 /pol/ )
The problem is the lack of an incremental path toward it.
To actually implement Basic Universal Income would be betting the country on it. Immediately, a very large number of low-paying job positions would be unfillable. A lot of work only gets done because people would suffer more by not having a job than they do by keeping the job.
It's not clear that society could survive not having the whip of poverty to drive the lowest-status workers. You basically need to be in a position where you can keep paying the BUI even if everybody chooses not to work.
Furthermore, now you're in the uncomfortable position of providing for a population that has no reason not to explode with exponential growth. Bored people with no jobs and free healthcare could just start having a dozen kids each. Suddenly you have to tell people when they are and aren't allowed to have children.
See for an alternative: >>6560295
The technological self-sufficiency model is something we can move toward gradually. It deals with the process of transition and the issue of population growth in a natural way.
Negative income tax
You gradually just start lowering lowest tax brackets and increasing social security. Once tax goes into negative start lowering social security. It's a pretty smooth transition into robot economy
So does this mean people can become and stay NEETs forever?
I personally find it funny that for all the shit welfare and assisted programs get that ultimately in the end because of technology itself 90% of the population will eventually be put on some form of this.
Also is it safe to say that the last careers standing in end will be scientist, mathematician, musician, artist, comedian and politician?
Great. It's too bad robots don't replace hospitals/pharmacies entirely.
It'd be better if every home had one of those "autodoctor" things from Prometheus. Hell, one for pets would be good too.
ITT Anesthesiologists desperately try to justify there jobs.
If you over charge for your services and no other option is available you will be slowly but surely automated out of the market as a result.
Almost every field is replaceable by a automation if enough resources are dedicated to the cause.
Doubt this and be shat on by invitation, or trust in it and adapt.
Not really. I've been an actual NEET for a while. Most people who say they are aren't really and have SOME social life. You either get out of that lifestyle in about five years or you go insane. Everything you think you like now will become boring and you'll start doing real work just to have something more interesting to do. The people who proposed a universal basic income know a society composed entirely of NEETs is not even a remote possibility.
The medical professions should all be totally automated.
I know gem cutters make a lot more per hour, would be a lot easier to automate and would produce better products but I believe we should work as hard as we can to automate doctors as soom as possible because they are a bunch off assholes.
Every time you get hurt or sick you have to be exposed to some self- important arrogant dickweed in order to get fixed up. Almost literally it's adding insult to injury.
Life would be just so much nicer if we never had to talk to doctors.
>Algorithmic MDs Will Ruin Healthcare, Nurses Say
In a bid to make healthcare cheaper and faster, hospitals are turning to algorithmic systems for diagnosing patients. But the national nurses' union says that robots-meet-super-WebMD are no replacement for a real doctor.
Algorithms that can analyze symptoms and spit out a diagnosis favor efficiency over proper care, according to a recent campaign by National Nurses United (NNU). The union claims that automated diagnosis systems lack the individualized care a nurse can provide and mainly allow private hospitals to boost their bottom line.
Healthcare professionals have worked for years to develop diagnostic algorithms—including early methods like Apache III and SAPS III, as well are more more advanced clinical decision support systems—which are used to help determine how patients are treated.
I have no productive input to this thread, but I came here to say that the last anaesthetist I dealt with was a monster cunt. So bad that if he wasn't about to inject me with sedative I would have actually, physically confronted him about the way he conducts himself in his job. I wanted to knock that stupid cocksucker out so bad.
Told my gf about it and apparently he used to do work at her dental practice and everybody there had the same opinion of him.
I'm sure there's great anaesthetists out there, but I nominate this guy to have his job replaced with a machine.
>the national nurses' union says that robots-meet-super-WebMD are no replacement for a real doctor.
That seems like a sincere, unbiased opinion, since nurses have nothing to lose themselves if doctors are replaced by computers...
>The union claims that automated diagnosis systems lack the individualized care a nurse can provide
People can be bad M'Kay?
People drawn to a career where they have total power over helpless people are USUALLY bad.
Automating healthcare is the best way to make it not only affordable but FAIR.
We all know that if your Dr.is an ethnic X from Ytown then other people of the X race and other folks from Ytown will get better care from you.
That is the way it has always been; doctors believe they have the right, even the moral obligation to decide who lives and dies.
You know what this current Vet's Administration scandal is about? It's about Indian and Asian doctors (usually bottom of their class BTW) not giving a damn about American born losers who joined the army.
Doctors do have a "godlike"power of life and death and very few humans are saint enough to play that fairly.
Most don't even understand why others think they are supposed to try.
There are two career choices that allow you to stick your hand in other people's guts.
One is serial killer.
If they weren't, would they extract ten times the average income for their services, knowing that it drives people to bankruptcy and early graves from stress and deprivation?
Would they stand for, let alone encourage, a system that deliberately limits how many physicians are trained for the express purpose of supporting such high incomes, knowing that the undersupply of medical services will cause people to suffer and die of treatable diseases?
Would they obstruct advances in diagnostic technology that relieves the undersupply of their services?
MDs have been working to create the present situation for over a century. Huge salaries for them, even for the incompetent among them, at the cost of widespread death and ruin in the general population.
They aren't the cause of scientific medicine, they're just the gatekeepers to it.
Why is everyone mad at doctors? Wow.
I went to an orthopedist today and it was a positive experience. It was a ruthlessly efficient consult, too. I arrived early, got in early, left early knowing what are some probable causes of my problem, what to do in order to confirm, what to do in the mean time and why it's all happening.
Must be because I'm not American or something?
>Must be because I'm not American or something?
Yeah, in the US we have the AMA which is a cartel of medical schools artificially restricting the number of doctors allowed to graduate each year meaning medicine is an elitist and exclusive profession and doctors tend to be overpaid, overworked and arrogant.
Doctors here range from complaining about being underpaid by the public system to being scorned by society for being too rich for patients. I think it's a matter of people becoming intolerant of bullshit and only going to good doctors and leaving the bullshit ones behind. Like the free market would want us to.
I suppose it's hard when the doctors themselves are scarce. Maybe the US should relax a bit when it comes to the education. Honestly, when I listen to people talking about 9-10 years of expensive medical education in the US it sounds pretty ridiculous to me. But then I remember all the medical students who tell me that "you only really learn in practice".
Oh well. I just hope people realize this entire "automating the entire profession" thing isn't really going to happen any time soon. Some people visit doctors even if only for some human contact and validation. People who say doctors are irrelevant because of technology have a very narrow view of it. It's not as simple and algorithmic as reading a table of physiological data and mathematically calculating a result and extrapolating the treatment. Medicine is fundamentally a human practice. It's not really going to go away, provided they stay that way. Though I must say, the way you people describe doctors, they don't sound very humane at all.
This is a very American way to think, actually. Doctors in my country, after decades of American influence, are starting to wise up. The new generation is already aware.
>Some people visit doctors even if only for some human contact and validation.
What a waste of money. It must be nice to throw money away for no reason.
I only visit doctors when I can't pull the knife out myself, or I'm coughing up blood.
1.000 times this.
They know damn well they are holding medical science hostage, away from people who need it so they can rich.
Seriously,most common street thugs, robbers and burglars would never be so inhuman, so cold blooded as to just watch people die because they can't pay them as much as others.
The members of the American Medical Association do that every day.
Not implying equality,just pointing out that automation makes everyone rich.
You own more fabric;shirts, sheets, coats, than a prince could afford 500 years ago because even a plain cotton tee shirt woven by hand costs a few weeks wages.
Automated doctors will make everyone healthier
That is not "complicated".
That is wasteful.
Ah, the wonders of socialized medicine in shit countries. Helping needy people ruin the lives of people that actually need medical help for actual ailments by shitting money down the toilet because they're lonely.
Another good reason for meat-based-doctors to be removed from healthcare.
The da vinci, and other robots actually have a very good track record.
The DR only operates in the same room as the patient when using the robot in case they have to open emergently - If they have a surgeon in the room prepared to open, in theory they could be on the other side of the planet, on a cruise ship, or even on the moon, with a 4-5s delay you could do an appendectomy.
I actually know of a few rich europeans traveling to america to have - CHOLECYSTECTOMY, damn dude that's bad.
While doing the chole case it was brought up they were european (I knew because of teeth) and someone asked why they traveled here for this case - I blurted out, "probably because they didn't want to wait 3 months" the surgeon turned to me and said, yep - and they paid cash.
I only did 1 other surgery for a traveling european that wasn't elective, that you will get done THE DAY its noticed in america. seriously, get your shit together.
Oh, look. Someone from /pol/.
I guess when you spend hours every day shitting on your forevertinfoil/shillocaust/SJWmageddon board, you need to come to /sci/ and shit here too because it's cleaner.
>Some people visit doctors even if only for some human contact and validation.
They can go to naturopaths and other quacks for that nonsense. For the rest of us, who only want proper care for our physical problems, there will be the machines and the technicians to run them.
Maybe if the average American didn't go bankrupt when paying hospital bills I'd feel a little bit of sympathy for the anesthesiologist. As it stands, let the robot revolution commence!
>Maybe if the average American didn't go bankrupt when paying hospital bills I'd feel a little bit of sympathy for the anesthesiologist.
That's not the doctor's fault. It's the fault of the insurance industry and the politicians they bribe. The actual doctors actually have it pretty shitty, in general.
a million people a year in America are killed from medical malpractice.
when people mess up they at least take a hit to their malpractice insurance. they eventually loose their ability to practice medicine if they screw up enough.
medical bot corporajewtion would be shielded from all liability when their jew bots kill you.
how would you place proper liability and punishment for when the machine screws up?
the machine owned by a corporation. made by a corporation. serviced by a corporation. all of which shield their owners and employees from liability.
AMA's a fucking mafia cartel! Check this shit out.
> Unknown to most, a single committee of the AMA, the chief lobbying group for physicians, meets confidentially every year to come up with values for most of the services a doctor performs.
>Those values are required under federal law to be based on the time and intensity of the procedures. The values, in turn, determine what Medicare and most private insurers pay doctors.
>But the AMA’s estimates of the time involved in many procedures are exaggerated, sometimes by as much as 100 percent, according to an analysis of doctors’ time, as well as interviews and reviews of medical journals.
In the late 1980s and early ’90s, the United States called on a group at Harvard University to develop a more deliberate system for paying doctors.
What they came up with, basically, is the current point system. Every procedure is assigned a number of points — called “relative value units” — based on the work involved, the staff and supplies, and a smaller portion for malpractice insurance.
Every year, Congress decides how much to pay for each point — this year, for example, the government initially assigned $34.02 per point, though prices vary somewhat with location and other factors.
>How the AMA Engages in Government-Sanctioned Price Fixing
the prices of procedures are so high because of this mafia. they also regulate the small number of allowed med students.
Read this, it's fascinating how corrupt the US has become.
>On the last week of April earlier this year, a small committee of doctors met quietly in a midsized ballroom at the Renaissance Hotel in Chicago. There was an anesthesiologist, an ophthalmologist, a radiologist, and so on—thirty-one in all, each representing their own medical specialty society, each a heavy hitter in his or her own field.
The meeting was convened, as always, by the American Medical Association. Since 1992, the AMA has summoned this same committee three times a year. It’s called the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (or RUC, pronounced “ruck”), and it’s probably one of the most powerful committees in America that you’ve never heard of.
The purpose of each of these triannual RUC meetings is always the same: it’s the committee members’ job to decide what Medicare should pay them and their colleagues for the medical procedures they perform. How much should radiologists get for administering an MRI? How much should cardiologists be paid for inserting a heart stent?
There can be an important human element to practicing medicine and interacting with a patient. I'm not sure robots are anywhere close to identifying issues by talking to a patient who's symptoms may be hidden and unaware to the patient, especially in the case of mental disease. So in the case of one on one primary care, I think a human interaction could be important, where a doctor can look into a patient's face, see their expression, the look in their eyes and extrapolate things like depression, or other mental health issues.
>There can be an important human element to practicing medicine and interacting with a patient...
...that can be satisfied by a cute, clumsy receptionist with big tits that is always picking up whatever she dropped.
People want to talk to a doctor. They want to ask questions. They want his full attention on their problem. Sometimes completely healthy people think they have something and they consult. Some of those people get pissed when they just get dismissed by the doctor as if it was nothing. People have different tolerances when it comes to the information they want to receive and doctors pick up on that. There are so many ethical problems you face when treating patients, you cannot possibly automate it. The profession is built upon interpersonal relationships and humanity. You can't spell healthcare without care.
It's amazing to see you people overlook this. It's for this exact reason technology will never replace medicine. You can't replicate something you refuse to acknowledge the existence or the importance of. Whatever you make will just become yet another tool of the doctor that he will use to save lives. You will never render him obsolete.
Not all machines deal with human life.
I'm from an European socialist country. Waiting is a thing, but basically only for the public healthcare (which carries a nominal cost that's like, 10-20€ per time). If you can afford it, or have insurance (employers often provide some), then you can use private healthcare. It also depends very much on where you live (due to regional healthcare) and what sort of appointments you need.
Like, dentists are incredibly choked up, it takes about half a year to get time for a check-up since I'm in a fairly big city but if you have something causing pain or requiring immediate attention then they have times reserved for that and you can usually get a time the next day or even the same one if it's serious.
And about the part where doctors are dicks, I think that's up to the individual. I've recently had only bad experiences with the private and public doctors alike. They never actually do anything, just pass me on to the next person. In here, though, having to get surgery doesn't usually drive you to personal bankruptcy which is nice enough.
This thread is filled with literal autists who can't comprehend the human aspect of medicine, STEM-majors who feel the need to express their rage against pre-meds, and the intellectually lazy who try to reduce the clusterfuck that is healthcare policy into single-solution problems.
Some of the posts about policy are absolutely cringe-worthy in how misinformed and simplistic they are.
I feel like I've seen that thread, but every /sci/ thread on medicine ends up with the same patterns of posts.
Also, I forgot to mention the ridiculous ideological stances and misguided usage of utilitarianism.
>Anyway, I'm not going to get into this whole engineering debate. I don't really understand where the animosity is coming from.
Well, I don't, either.
>I love how there is literally no way to make that sort of post without seeming like fedoratron McButthurt.
>I posted re my prior degree in physics, and upon reading back I'm all like "OMG I'm like so defensive and butthurt".
>Meanwhile you look like you are trying to justify a long degree in something that is only a luxury and Engineer dude is sneezing virginity all over the drapes.
>Most people who say they are aren't really and have SOME social life.
That feel when I don't even have that :(
(although I do have a McDonald's job, but that's only a tiny bit above NEET-dom)
The flip side is that most people are more open when talking to a machine than to another human being. Machines don't judge you and you can't embarrass them and you feel anonymous. It's similar as to why 4chan is so popular.
Pic related, it's two women laughing at you while you silently, instantly die because Dr. Jamunjabum incorrectly intuited that you needed 300ug of anesthetic instead of 250ug.
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but: You're not seeing the whole picture.
Why do people think a machine is going to be error-free? I've got news for you, they're NOT. If they were then why does, for instance, your computer fuck up sometimes? I'll tell you why: Because some programmer, despite the allegedly rigorous testing the FDA forces them to do, still fucks up the code, and under the right circumstances it does something unintended, that's why. Same with this: a human doctor may notice something the machine doesn't, and will do something different that keeps the patient from harm, while the machine blithely follows it's programming, and maybe the patient dies. Oh well! We found a bug! Better fix it! Pay off the deceased's family members and move on! Yeah, sure, great plan. I'd rather take my chances with a human doctor, thanks, or at least have a human doctor sitting there monitoring the patient and overriding the machine if it's about to fuck up.
you're wrong again. once machines are good enough, one of the biggest selling factors *from the hospital's persepctive* will be the ability to outsource liability: when patients die, suddenly it's no longer Mother Teresa Hospital's liability, it's Johnson & Johnson's. Do you have any idea how happy this would make hospitals everywhere?
He's not totally wrong. The company that builds and programs the machine that ends up contributing to someone's death will have to pay the family of the deceased, usually in an out of court settlement, and part of the settlement would normally be that they don't talk to the press or anyone else about the case because the company wants to protect it's reputation. The engineer or programmer ultimately responsible for the failure never sees a courtroom and their identity is never revealed to the family bringing the wrongful death lawsuit. At worst the FDA will pull certification for the device in question and not allow them to sell it anymore, but having worked for a medical device manufacturer I can tell you the FDA can be 'worked' in these situations and in the end they 'fix' the problem and go back to business as usual. When doctors harm or kill a patient there's settlements, yes, but there's also reviews, and habitually incompetent doctors are prevented from practicing medicine again. It's not a perfect system but I'll take it over the alternative.
when it comes to grocery checkout, it isn't the machines that are untrustworthy, it's the humans.
Now here's a referral to a good rektologist, schedule an appointment and let him know you got rekt
>implying robot doctors will be programmed by the same people who program consumer-grade iphone apps, or will use the same error tolerance/testing methods
>Oh well! We found a bug!
That's a lot more comforting than the current status quo.
>Oh well! Doc had a bad day! Here's a fistful of cash to keep your mouth shut so he can continue practicing.
This is how bad things have gotten with our health care system:
Fucking crazy. I say, bring in more machines!
I pity you, being this cynical it must be hard to get out of bed in the morning
Why should the programmer/engineer appear in court? That's like saying if a doctor is in a bad mood because of what he ate for breakfast, the person who served the breakfast should appear in court.
The company itself should be held liable, and in addition to compensating the victim, fix the errors. The programmer/engineer should be evaluated to determine whether still competent, etc. etc.
If there's a bug that causes deaths repeatedly, it'll be harder and harder to "fix" it via corruption like you said. And why the fuck would the company choose to continue paying out eight-digit settlements when six-digits will buy a whole year's worth of bug-fixing expertise
this post is pretty dumb. Yes, statistical methods work, no "human intuition" will kill you, yes, they will take personalized data.
You're one of those people that's stupid, and then you project that onto other people. Statisticians and engineers are competent, and even if you couldn't figure out how to do it, they did.
Even with those errors, AI is vastly more reliable than a human.
For example, Google's self driving car. 100,000 miles travelled, no tickets, no accents, no one got killed, no laws violated.
How many humans can claim that record?
Robots/machines in OR are the same thing (and much SIMPLER actually). They'll perfect them and they'll be near-perfect and accidents will be extremely rare.
>That's because when they see a car driving on its own they back the fuck off.
Nope. THere's always a person in the drivers' seat but they don't have hands on the wheel. And that's hard to see that from outside.
>And who would the ticket be issued to if nobody is driving?
LMAO.. pls be trolling.
>I'm not responsible if my automated robot car decided to speed.
Of course you are. It's your property. If your dog bites someone, you're on the hook as well. Hell, if the tree on your property falls and injures someone or falls on someone's car, you're responsible. So if your car is speeding, you're responsible.
> And you can't give a robot a speeding ticket.
It's your property. Doesn't matter who's driving. If you ever end up having kids (let's hope that doesn't happen considering your low IQ), if your kid runs a red light past the red light camera in your car, you're still responsible.
>Pay lots of money to have machine do work while paid doctors sit around losing experience
Look, can a machine travel around the world and help someone whenever it's needed? no
Can a machine have compassion? no
The complaints artificially limited medical school enrollment are retarded. Enrollment has to be kept down because there aren't enough residency positions to train graduates. There are shit-tons of foreign medical graduates and locals going to international schools, who can't match. Training a doctor is difficult and the system can't just increase residency spots on a whim. Scapegoating the AMA, which doesn't even represent the majority of doctors, is dumb.
In Canada, we overcompensated and increased our school enrollments. The result is that, though we dodged the residency problem, our general surgeons can't find work after training. These one-statement solutions are not productive and miss the finer nuances of a healthcare system.
Want to blame a group? Blame administrators, who have swell in ranks by a literal twenty-something-fold in the last few decades, contribute nothing to delivery of care, and needlessly make life difficult for doctors and nurses.
Want more technology? Look at the EHR systems in place. They vary from being barely sufficient to ball-busting-ly terrible, inefficiency-producing pieces of crap. Look at the history of the medical device industry and their bullshit shenanigans. This thread reeks of thoughtless futurist hype.
I think most people just don't care because it's not something that will happen during this century. What we're talking about here is to replace a high level job with a self-teaching machine, needless to say when this happens, the entire society will be already completely different from what we know. Some people are highly overestimating how fast this can happen.
I think you're vastly underestimating peoples' power of imagination. Saying "people just don't care" just isn't true! People in the field care about new tools or losing their jobs, and the common man might among many other things look to a future of no human interaction and the replacement of medical care with uncaring robots that cannot be trusted because you don't know how they work..
people thought there'd be flying cars in the early 2000's. people thought we'd have a moon station. some people were over optimistic obviously. The truth is that we we don't really know where we'll be in 50 years.
>people thought there'd be flying cars in the early 2000's. people thought we'd have a moon station.
Both of those things have been technologically feasible for decades, they're just impractical.
>The truth is that we we don't really know where we'll be in 50 years.
That's certainly true, but we're not talking about 50 years in the future, we're talking about 10 years in the future.
>People in the medical industry seem to be so hostile to the notion of robots replacing chunks of the industry.
They're like horse carriage drivers before Ford made cars affordable.
Insurance industry will push heavily for all these robots, machines and AI because they will reduce costs of procedures and they'll also reduce malpractice insurance.
Not to mention that silicon valley CS billionaires are investing heavily in it. Medicine will become just another casualty of software.
As Andreesen said, "Software is eating the world".
>I think most people just don't care because it's not something that will happen during this century.
LOL… it will happen within the next 7-15 years. Things move quickly.
google is already releasing cars that have no drivers seat or steering wheel and that is completely automated. only a matter of time before its applied to flying vehicles as well. not that I see flying CARS as economically feasible with our current methods of powering cars
>fossil fuel or cells powered by stations fueled by fossil fuel
When I see a cochrane review of clinical trials of these machines and that they do better than a doctor, then wake me up. Until then...I am still going to buy some shares in these companies.
Not much though.
>The result is that, though we dodged the residency problem, our general surgeons can't find work after training.
This is a good thing, it means the job market is saturated so that all demanded jobs can be filled. Yeah it sucks for the unemployed surgeons and probably surgeons in general who are paid less as a result but paying less for medical procedures means society is better off.
There is an inherent conflict of interest (as in any labor market) between doctors and consumers. But since absolutely everyone in the country needs healthcare everyone is a consumer including the doctors, rather than striking a fair balance where doctors get 300k starting and absolute job security and everyone else pays a lot more this is a case where the consumers' interest is unequivocally more important.
>Look at the history of the medical device industry and their bullshit shenanigans.
The history doesn't fucking matter. The future is what matters. Obviously the technology is nowhere near ready yet, we know that. But it is starting to become viable in certain situations, and if it is never given a chance and implemented to make sure doctors still get absolute job security and extremely high pay the tech is never going to advance to the level where it CAN replace doctors.
In short, get fucked you greedy fucking cunt. Lawyers spend nearly as long in school as you and are lucky to find work after graduating, and the legal industry has never been doing better, they work just as hard when they get a job too. There is absolutely no reason doctors deserve absolute job security and such insanely high wages. A functioning medical job market would have doctors in a similar position to lawyers or engineers, where the barrier to entry is being good enough to find employment not arbitrary market restrictions and all those skilled and motivated enough for the job still have no problem making six figures.
If you are so concerned with money you should have done finance.
Yeah but if a cop saw the driverless car blowing by him speeding he'd still pull it over because he didn't know any of that. This hasn't happened yet because the robot is smart, unlike you.
>our general surgeons can't find work after training
This means that soon we'll probably start firing the incompetent ones.
This is something that really has to change in medical culture. During the doctor shortage, they developed this culture of denying and concealing incompetence, because they just couldn't replace people. They could either not provide services, or they could provide services incompetently, and incompetence is far easier to conceal than simple non-provision.
It's going to take a while to sort that out. People are probably going to have to go to prison over it.