Robots may cut down on infection and mean a consultant can see more patients, but wouldn't you rather meet the doctor than a machine?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There's a great deal of suspicion and misunderstanding about IT among practicing doctors. One hears things like, 'I don't want to be turned into a data entry clerk, and I don't want some machine between me and my patients.'
As a physician, I know many doctors want to utilize new technology, but they find the cost prohibitive.
I believe one day nano-robots will play an important role in medicine.
I think the extreme complexity of medicine has become more than an individual clinician can handle. But not more than teams of clinicians can handle.
I don't want anybody between a doctor and a patient - not an insurance company bureaucrat or a Washington bureaucrat.
The fact of the matter is right now politicians and insurance companies are making decisions. We're saying we want doctors to be making decisions. And I think that will lead to a higher-quality, lower-cost system over time.
If robots are to clean our homes, they'll have to do it better than a person.
The benefits of having robots could vastly outweigh the problems.
Keep in mind that if you take a tour through a hospital and look at every machine with on and off switch that is brought into the service of diagnosing the human condition, that machine is based on principles of physics discovered by a physicist in a machine designed by an engineer.
I would welcome processes that eliminate the need for doctors. We bottle-neck things around doctors, and it's not a good way of doing things.