Robotic Surgery Best For Whom?

The article I thought was interesting was an article by Gina Kolata in the Star Tribune, "Is a robot's arm better than a surgeon's hand?" Elliott states quite clearly in "Better Than Well" that psychopharmacology is heavily influenced by the drug companies' drive to increase profits, and they will do everything they can to maximize their profits. It stands to reason that every company out there working to improve medical technology would have that same drive to spread their technology everywhere.

There have been so many reports about doctors having been wooed by pharmaceutical companies, whether it's through expensive trips or a bunch of free shit, all on the company's dime. The article mentions "Oh, patients are really wanting this and are really susceptible to aggressive marketing" but it doesn't connect that with the description of how patients reject doctors who aren't using this technology. Where are patients hearing about how it's so much better? From watching House on television? The last sentence of my article is basically my position, that people have to be careful about what they're buying in the medical industry, because doctors don't just have your best interests at heart anymore -- even if they still think they do.

__________

Robot-Assisted Surgery Best For Whom?

Gina Kolata's article about the replacement of live prostate surgeons with robotic arms failed to bring up an important point, in regards to the relationship between the industries of medicine and technology. Patients were said to be responding to "assertive marketing" in requesting a robotic surgeon. The makers of the robot are likely the ones marketing the surgical tools, but what exactly are they telling patients about the surgical tools that makes them so irresistible? The chief surgeon from GWUMC implied that despite its increased price, the robot didn't seem to do that much better a job than he is able to do on his own. And it can't be that they've heard about statistical studies of patients who have or haven't undergone the robotic surgery, because there has been no truly definitive study done to decide whether it's worth the extra cost. So there's not really anywhere a patient could have heard about it.

This wave of robotic surgery is likely not being marketed directly to patients at all; instead it's being marketed towards the surgeons, each of whom has an incentive to appear better than the competition by having the most modern technology. If that's true, then just as patients should assess the risks and benefits of every new wave of medical advances, so they should take a look at why robotic prostate surgery is even an option, and then decide whether it's an improvement worthy of your money.