You are on page 1of 11

Zachary Melton ENGL 1102 Mr.

Borrero 4/11/2013 Reflective Memo In the past hour I've done some reflecting on my C.A.P. Project and read it out loud to myself and my girlfriend two-three times. In there end there are some things I would improve if I had more time, some challenges and triumphs I had while working on it, and things you should focus on when reading. Without any further delay, let's jump in to the reflection. If I had 24 more hours to work on this project there's one thing I would focus on: Adding more discussion with my articles that I'm responding to. As I read through it I noticed that there wasn't enough engagement with my sources (granted I added one in at the last second). However I feel like my purpose of expanding on the articles called for it, there were places I definitely could have added interaction with them. If I had time after this I would do two more things. The first thing would be to ask someone to read it out loud to me so I could get a sense of how it sounds when someone else reads it to check for errors in how I say things. When I read it I know what I mean when I'm saying it, whereas someone can easily find flaws in my sentence structure. The final thing would be to jazz it up more. I wanted to create a mock website for my article, but it didn't turn out how I exactly wanted. There's nothing really outside of this I can think of that I'd work on since we have had an entire month to work on this project. In addition to what I would do if I had more time, there are somethings I consider to be triumphs and challenges you should know about when reading my piece. Starting with some challenges, I had the same challenge I've been faced with for a long time which is picking a topic so broad that its hard for me to narrow down at times. I feel like I should have picked something a lot more specific outside of medical technology such as just focusing on digital culture. I realized this

about of the way into the project, but was unable to change at this point. However, I feel like I was able to make due with my topic and put forth good discussions about my points effectively. My triumphs were my ability to come up with good research and display it in a manner that backed up my discussion. Another triumph I felt was the way I revised my essay numerous times to smooth it out. This might not be considered a triumph, but I felt proud after seeing a rough as hell draft get smoothed out to where I was happy with it. To expand on this, there are somethings you should focus on when reading my piece for discussion or just to pay attention to. The first thing would be my use of citation and research to back up my discussion. While I believe I was very strong in this, taken from feedback of my peers, I'd like a final opinion now that this is my final draft. One of my main problems so far with this piece has been flow, so I'd like you to pay attention to the way my article flows from paragraph to paragraph. I've tried to work on the flow since the second draft so I know it has shown good improvement, but again a final opinion would be nice. You should also pay attention to the tone I presented since it is something I've been trying to work on as well. I wanted to present a more authoritive tone since it is an article, but I found it difficult at times since it was an opinion piece. I feel like the way I displays my research to back me up really helped in giving me the tone I wanted. To wrap things up so you can move on to the actual project, I'd like to say that I, myself, am happy with the piece. It was a good opportunity to work on the things I felt I needed to work on such as tone, audience, and structure/flow. There were things wrong with the piece like the flow, though I tried to work with it and shape it into something that works. As with all writing, this was a learning experience that did force me out of my comfort zone as I've never wrote an article or a piece responding to someone else's work. In the end, I worked hard on the project and tried to show improvement as a writer. One more note to make, I tried to make it seem like an article site as I didn't actually have time to make one since I spent most of my final time revising and polishing.

Zachary Melton ENGL 1102 Mr. Borrero 3/20/2013 Medical Technology: The Line Between Tool and Replacement

When you think of a doctor, what do you see? A middle aged man, or woman, dressed in white asking you questions and diagnosing your symptoms? Soon that image could change for people as technology is quickly taking a foothold in the medical industry. As Helene Pavlov's article titled Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Your Family Doctor? suggests, artificial intelligence and machines will take over a lot of the medical industry from scanning X-rays and test results to directly diagnosing patients based on symptoms. In addition, Jonathan Cohn of the Atlantic provides a more recent insight in his article The Robot Will See You Now that outlines the use of technologies currently in development that threaten taking over doctors and phyicians. While Pavlov and Cohn mainly view this as a negative step in the medical field, I happen to find both cons and pros of such a change in technology. Moreover, I do not view the future of medicine as completely taken over by technological appliances. In this article I will expand on both Pavlov and Cohn's idea's by mainly focusing on three specific forms of medical technologies: artificial intelligence, medical robotics, and digital culture (such as websites) and how they are impacting the medical field. As a medical patient, why should you care? Technology is being used to enhance many aspects of the medical field from managing patient data, research, to impacting our health care system (Salman). In order to understand my stance on why I believe technology should not take over medicine you need to know a little background on what artificial intelligence, medical robotics, and digital culture is as well as why I view these technologies as only tools for doctors to use and nothing more. In the end I want you to use this knowledge to not be

afraid of technology and its advances as a tool, but to disapprove of technological advances that seek to completely take over doctors. To start with, how did we get to where we are in the medical field, and where did all of this technology come from? It doesn't take much to see that we've made significant strides in medical technologies. I don't know about you, but when I think early medicine and tools I think of things like herbs, mortar and pestle's, and scalpel's. Sure, these things are still being used in places even today but technology has created more efficient ways to make things easier. We've gone from grinding up herbs by hand to mass producing and distributing medicine by machines. In addition, when you'd normally go straight to a doctor for help you can now connect with an entire community online for help. But how did we get to this point? When and where did the transition take place? Saying when technology really Introducing the state of the art heart beat monitoring device

advanced outside of tools such as a scalpel is too broad of a question to answer since it covers many different aspects of the field, but it is easy to say that things such as artificial intelligence has changed the field forever. So what exactly is AI, or artificial intelligence? When talking about AI there are a lot of different things you could talk about. For the purposes of this article, we'll simply define it as an attempt to replicate human intelligence in machines and computer programs. If you're looking for a more technical definition, Istvan S. N. Berkeley from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette defines artificial intelligence as the study of man-made computational devices and systems which can be made to act in a manner which we would be inclined to call intelligent (Berkeley). However, that's nice and all but how is this linked to the medical field? Artificial intelligence is used for many different things in the medical field from databases, to image processing, to aiding doctors in diagnoses (Rastgarpour 5). In addition to this, artificial intelligence is even used to help train medical students while they're in school such as with the famous IBM Watson computer (Cohn). It's easy now to see that artificial

intelligence is no minor player when thinking about doctors and the medical field as it covers many different areas. In her article, Pavlov questions artificial intelligence's ability to evaluate abnormal patterns, or to self-aid a patient which to a degree she would be correct. While I doubt artificial intelligence can completely replace doctors, it still is a vital tool in the medical field. As previously mentioned, AI plays a hand in a variety of different aspects of the medical field that have become more than just making it easier; it has become a necessary part of the field. Let's take IBM Watson as an example since I've already mentioned it. Currently, Watson is being used to help medical students by applying their knowledge using Watson's vast database technology to 'diagnose' patients given their symptoms (Cleveland Clinic and IBM join forces). This is important because according to IBM, by 2020, doctors will face 200 times the amount of medical data and facts that a Meet 'Watson'

human could possibly process (Cleveland Clinic and IBM join forces). Given the vast knowledge the field holds, its becoming a need to have the help of artificial intelligence there to help students learn everything quickly and efficiently. There could even be potential for this type of technology to be used by actual doctors to help diagnose actual patients since it's unlikely for a human to remember every possible illness someone might have. This is where the human and artificial intelligence collaborate to advance the medical field efficiency. On the flip side, Jonathan Cohn argues that technology like IBM Watson can be a huge threat and a breakthrough that can ultimately replace physicians in the long run (Cohn). Cohn backs himself up by stating how many people believe that even if Watson doesn't live up to the expectations placed upon him, it is still a symbol of a shift in health care (Cohn). Whether or not Cohn is correct by saying this, I agree with Pavlov when she argues that artificial intelligence does not have the right to diagnose patients on their own. A doctor holds authority over the program to diagnose the patient and treat them since they have the medical training, and the artificial intelligence is only

there as a tool to help them. Artificial intelligence is not the only tool doctors can utilize with the growing technology advances. Medical robotics is a fairly new invention, having the first use of advanced robots on things such as surgery in 1985 (Sanchez). The image of a lone robot hovering over a patient could pop into ones head when thinking of this, but that image is wrong. The robots are supervised at all times, and most of the time are operated by humans themselves (Sanchez). Speaking more broadly, robots in medicine is what it sounds like, robots used in the medical field. To clearify what medical robotics consists of, think of things such as surgery robots, exoskeletons, medication dispensers, and even nanorobots. Robotics are necessary to medicine since the technology makes things that were previously impossible possible. This includes allowing people with paralyzed limbs to use them through the use of robotic prosthetics and exoskeletons. Having a mechanized hand is becoming possible since now since sensors are being attached to nerves and muscles so they can be controlled with thought (Sanchez). In addition the use of exoskeletons are extremely helpful in giving the possibility to help paralyzed people walk and get around like they normally would independently. Without the help of these robotic technologies, certain movement would be Soon, having a mechanical hand exactly like Luke Skywalker may be more than science fiction impossible to these people. Having technology like this can also increase the efficiency of the field as well as the safety of patients in and out of the hospital. In order to expand on addressing how medical robotics improves our safety we need to think in terms of efficiency. Take for example the use of automated dispensing machines. Before their invention, medication was dispensed in a lot of hospitals to patients using carts that would go around to each room and hand out the medication needed (Fung). This method was highly inefficient and caused a lot of problems to people since it was labor intensive and a lot of times medication times were missed due to delays (Fung). Not only did the automated dispensers reduce the time it took for medication to

get to the patient, but it reduced a lot of manual labor required to dispense the medication by hand. However, the medications are still looked after for faults and handled by the nurses in the hospital. Even robotics are just used as a tool and not to completely replace doctors and staff. Going back to the image of the robot hovering over the patient performing surgery; this is something that you wont see for a very long time since the technology as a tool is still being developed. For the most part, surgery robots are operated by actual doctors trained to use them. One of the most popular operating machines is called the Da Vinci, which is operated by the surgeon using a terminal in the same room as the patient. This has become a great asset to doctors as the Da Vinci gives them a lot more mobility when operating on a patient and allows them to reach places that are normally hard to reach by hand (Benefits of Robotic Surgery). The patient gets the joys of low risk of infections, lower blood loss and pain, and quicker recovery times (Sanchez). The Da Vinci has made many different types of surgeries a lot more efficient and safe to the patients and doctors, but the machine is still only as good as the surgeon since it is completely controlled by them. This is how it should stay since this technology is primarily a tool for doctors to use and make their practices more efficient. There's a certain comfort in being able to meet The Da Vinci surgical system. Notice the surgeon operating the system in the background

the person that will operate on you and learn their qualifications, whereas you can't really meet a machine. Whether or not a machine can bypass years of surgical training to do surgery on it's own has yet to be determined, and I believe it will be a long time before it actually is. For now it is just a tool to help the doctors as well as medical patients, and let's hope it stays that way. Aside from artificial intelligence and robotics, there are some more accessible technologies available to the general public such as digital culture. Digital culture plays a huge part in the medical field today as more and more people are taking their symptoms to the internet to diagnose themselves.

Medical digital culture are websites used to diagnose, talk about, or even treat illnesses based on symptoms. These sites include but are not limited to Web MD, Mayo Clinic, Medline, Yahoo, and Google. These sites provide articles that talk about certain illnesses as well as forums for users to discuss their symptoms or problems. How is this linked to the actual medical field? Many people are taking matters in their own hands and looking for diagnoses on their own. In a very recent study it was said that 59 percent of U.S. Adults say they looked online for health information within the past year (Hill). This means that over half of the U.S. are starting their medical journey online, but is this a good thing? Some would say yes, some would say no. When talking about if using medical digital culture is good or not it might be obvious, but this technology has its pros and cons when talking medically. Some good things is that the patient is more informed on the types of illnesses they could have based on their symptoms and some simple ways to treat them. Having an idea that something you could have is very dangerous can lead to emergency, often needed, trips to the doctor. One example would be a woman named Pat Stewart, who had an unusually long respiratory infection that lasted several weeks (Hill). After checking online for the potential causes, Pat decided to consult a doctor since the outcomes seemed serious (Hill). It turned out Pat was diagnosed with asthma after an X-ray and CT scan (Hill). Information is a good thing for people to have at their finger tips, but is too much information a bad thing? I would say yes, because some people are not trained to interpret it. In the wrong hands, the information can cause a lot of problems for someone trying to diagnose themselves online. What if they get their diagnoses wrong and start treating themselves for something completely different from what they actually have? Not only can there be dangers involved with treating the wrong thing, but their real problem is being neglected while they treat their false illness (Dombeck). There is also an issue with the accuracy of these online sources, since it is really just a database that goes off your symptoms. There are no blood tests or X-rays to go off of to be sure of that you have. Dr. Roger Harms, editor in chief of Mayo's consumer information site commented that When you search 'headache' and the internet comes up

with brain tumor, it's not likely going to the be first thought on 'headache' that your doctor will have (Harms in Hill). Aside from patients using these sources, you might be shocked to know that actual doctors are referring to these sources to diagnose patients. During a survey, it's said that 46 percent of doctors use search sites like Google or Yahoo in the practice of treating, diagnosing, and caring for patients (Chan). It might be interesting to note that 42 percent say they get information from sites like Web MD (Chan). If doctors are using these sites themselves to diagnose patients, why not just use them yourself to cut out the middle man? Well this goes back to my argument that these technologies are not meant to replace your doctor. As I said before, these online sources are good to get an idea on what could be your problem and it's ideal when you think something serious could be wrong, because then you can consult your doctor to get fully diagnosed. When a doctor refers to these sources, they are trained to know and rule out possible diagnoses with their own knowledge as well as what to search for when looking for problems (Chan). If you wanted to, it could be wise to thoroughly research what you think your problem might be so that you can take it to your doctor. This helps you understand what is wrong with you, and you already have an idea of what the problem is so you can be engaged with the conversation your doctor will have with you. Rink Murray, a gynecologist from Chattanooga agrees with this notion and adds that if you feel the doctor isn't working with you or can't or wont take the time to help you understand why he or she disagrees with your researched conclusions, get a second opinion (Murray in Hill). However, you should keep in mind that medical digital culture is meant as a tool and not to completely replace your doctor. It's very unwise, as I've said before, to self diagnose ones self as it can be dangerous. In the end, what should you do with all of this information? Knowing some of the technology that is being used as a tool to drive the health industry can help you understand your options when looking for care. Instead of settling with one method of treatment or care, what are some options that technology can offer you? If you were paralyzed, perhaps through the use of medical robotics you

could use your limbs instead of being in a wheelchair. In addition to this, you should be knowledgeable that medical technology is only a tool for doctors and medical staff to use to make their job more efficient and safe for you and not be afraid when a doctor uses, or says he/she will use technology to help treat you. If a doctor says he will make use of artificial intelligence to help him analyze your X-ray then you should be relieved to know that he is taking advantage of an advanced tool so he doesn't miss any subtle problems. To expand further, I stress that this technology should only be used as a tool and should not take the place of your doctor as with the case of medical digital culture, to which you can use to get an idea on possible problems but not to diagnose yourself. When the boundary between tool and what is diagnosing and treating you is broken is when we should be worried and question whether this technology is really up to the task to bypass years upon years of medical training that doctors must have to qualify to treat you. This line has already been crossed in some instances such as the kiosks that check your blood pressure and heart rate, but you can help keep the line in balance simply by getting that main opinion by a trained professional. By doing this you can keep the doctor where he belongs- in the doctors office- and not just as a facilitator to a machine that does his job for him. However on the other hand you might want to be talking to a machine the next time you visit a doctors office.

"Tell me about the symptoms you're having."

Works Cited "Benefits of Robotic Surgery." Whcenter.org. MedStar Washington Hospital Center. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Berkeley, Istvan. "What Is Artificial Intelligence?" Ucs.louisiana.edu. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Chan, Amanda. "Doctors Use Google For Health Information, Too, Survey Finds." Thehuffingtonpost.com. N.p., 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. "Cleveland Clinic and IBM Join Forces." IBM Research. IBM, Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Cohn, Jonathan. "The Robot Will See You Now." TheAtlantic.com. , 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. Dombeck, Mark, and Jolyn W. Moran. "Risks of Self Diagnosis." MentalHelp.net. N.p., 3 July 2006. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Fung, Esther Y., and Belling Leung. "Do Automated Dispensing Machines Improve Patient Safety?" US National Library of Medicine. Can J Hospital Pharmacy, Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Hill, Karen N. "Calling Dr. Google: One-third of American Self-Diagnosis on the Internet." Timesfreepress.com. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Pavlov, Helene. "Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Your Family Doctor?" Thehuffingtonpost.com. N.p., 21 Apr. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. Rastgarpour, M., and J. Shanbehzadeh. "Application of AI Techniques in Medical Image Segmentation and Novel Categorization of Available Methods and Tools." Iaeng.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. <http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2011/IMECS2011_pp519-523.pdf>. Salmon, Paul. "How Robots Are Being Used in Medicine." Technicallyeasy.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Sanchez, Matt. "The History of Medical Robots!" Neurochangers. N.p., 9 July 2012. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.