http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/84307407.html?page=2&c=y
The article addresses how patients are beginning to request a robot's "hand" for their surgery rather than that of a surgeon. This is a concern for many health professionals because the use of this robot is much more expensive than that of a surgeon's own capabilities, and the work is not necessarily better/worse.
I am baffled by this article because only a couple years ago we were talking about how much better it would be to have robotic assistance during surgeries. If there wasn't any significant difference using the machines, why did we invest in them in the first place? Hospitals must have looked at the pros and cons of using such machinery. Why are they now saying there is little difference in the over-all effectiveness? Could it possibly be ridiculous costs in healthcare to begin with? Hospitals and medical organizations need to seriously look at what they are spending on these fancy new advances. This is why we have such ridiculous costs in healthcare. Robots are fancy...but not always practical.
No comments:
Post a Comment