New Technologies- Not always beneficial

In the article titled “Is a robot’s arm better than a surgeon’s hand?” in the Star Tribune, the author is explaining the rise in popularity of the use of a robot in removing the prostate. The use of this robot causes the surgery to be much more expensive and there is no evidence of improving the surgery.
The issue I have with such advances is the motive for developing and publicizing such a robot that has no benefit. I believe that many new techniques and technologies are solely developed for the corresponding business that would be profiting. If the robot does not produce a better result, what is the point to develop it and pay more for the procedure? Another question is who will end up paying for the increase in expense? Insurance companies should not pay for the increased price for the same result.
Scientific progress has enabled us to develop and enhance human life. Sometimes, the scientific progress gets too far ahead of our needs. It is neat to see such an intricate machine but there is really no need for it.

Dear Editor,
I am writing concerning the article “Is a robot’s arm better than a surgeon’s hand?” about the new robot to remove the prostate. I am skeptical of the motive for such a publication. Such advances should seriously be questioned by the general public. Are these advances being publicized and popularized for the benefit of the company producing such robots or for the benefit of the human population? Many of times, I believe that it is a business adventure more than anything.
This specific procedure costs much more than the traditional surgeon technique and has no clear benefits.
One of the biggest questions that needs to be addressed is: who pays for this extra expense, when it seems to be very unnecessary? Insurance companies should not be responsible for this when the same procedure can be done for much less. The robot is being publicized for being so innovative but there is really no benefit for such a procedure.