Comment Re:One of the most useful applications... (Score 1) 211
Consider I am driving down some back woods road and have my accident...
You're right. In an A&E situation like that, with no other option to save you from an almost certain death, it would be irresponsible not to use a robotic surgeon if available - the principle of non maleficence ("first, do no harm").
However, my earlier post was with regard to more routine 9 till 5 procedures -- for example, it would be better to ship an otherwise healthy transplant patient who has been on a waiting list for months, to another hospital to undergo the procedure, rather than go for robotics to save the journey. Sure, it might even be more expensive, but again ethical principles would caution against taking unnecessary risks.
One thing I considered before was borderline cases like the scientist in Antarctica who got breast cancer, and had to have an airdrop of supplies before being evac'd when the weather changed. While not strictly applicable, in a borderline case would you want to hold out for transport or go for a robot? You can't really answer that generally, only on a case by case basis, but I think that this robotic tech is good if only it gives healthcare staff more options in cases where there were previously one or none (A&E for example).
And as for usage in training, I can't see it. The only real theoretical advantage over a regular videotaped operation would be the interactivity of a simulator, at which point you might as well use a model/cadaver/etc anyway. And why would you need to run a simulation over a WAN? A regular computer with a decent 3D card and whatever special input device they're using would be fine.
You're right. In an A&E situation like that, with no other option to save you from an almost certain death, it would be irresponsible not to use a robotic surgeon if available - the principle of non maleficence ("first, do no harm").
However, my earlier post was with regard to more routine 9 till 5 procedures -- for example, it would be better to ship an otherwise healthy transplant patient who has been on a waiting list for months, to another hospital to undergo the procedure, rather than go for robotics to save the journey. Sure, it might even be more expensive, but again ethical principles would caution against taking unnecessary risks.
One thing I considered before was borderline cases like the scientist in Antarctica who got breast cancer, and had to have an airdrop of supplies before being evac'd when the weather changed. While not strictly applicable, in a borderline case would you want to hold out for transport or go for a robot? You can't really answer that generally, only on a case by case basis, but I think that this robotic tech is good if only it gives healthcare staff more options in cases where there were previously one or none (A&E for example).
And as for usage in training, I can't see it. The only real theoretical advantage over a regular videotaped operation would be the interactivity of a simulator, at which point you might as well use a model/cadaver/etc anyway. And why would you need to run a simulation over a WAN? A regular computer with a decent 3D card and whatever special input device they're using would be fine.
