I also do not disclose to patients that I 1)used a computer monitor, 2)adjusted the window setting (contrast etc) on their radiology imaging study 3)checked Uptodate to make sure I don't miss a guideline 4)phone a friend (get advise from a colleague)

Why? Because ultimately it is your name on the line making life and death recommendations.

<quote><p>No, this is about improving health for more people. Full. Stop.
Better outcome means better profits.</p><p>"There are hundreds of thousands of deaths every year in the US due to medical error"
False.
Not that I expect actual thinking and data to change your incorrect narrative, but in case I am wrong(and I hope I am) here you go:</p><p><a href="https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsciencebasedmedicine.org%2Fare-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition%2F">https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsciencebasedmedicine.o...%26lt;/a></p></quote>

You are incorrect on several points.

Your first point is such a nebulous poorly quantifiable point - a)improving 2)health 3)more people = all three of those have significant conotations and room for debate among many on all sides ... it is not just your definition

Better outcomes do not equal more profits. Example: we could do a CT AB/PELV on every single person in the US beginning at say ... age 30? Deaths 1)mostly eliminated: kidney 2)significant reduced: small/large bowel, urothelial cancer 3)somewhat reduced: pancreas

But it would be enormously expensive. Health care is a cost/benefit calculation. If you don't make enough to keep the lights on, you can't serve your primary mission.

This is the most insane line of reasoning I've seen from a technophile in a long time. We should expect the exact opposite. Don't go messing (with chemicals in the real world as opposed to rooting around in software settings) with technology components unless it is specifically outlined as maintenance.

Does it over diagnose clinically insignificant cancers?

Not all cancer screening is *find all cancer*. In medicine the more important goal is to find clinically significant cancers. Not all lung cancers are clinically significant (think the slowly changing GGN (ground glass nodules that are low grade indolent lung cancers).

This concept is a hot topic and contentious across multiple cancer disciplines. While initially appealing to *find moaaar cancer*, there is a cost associated with that. Direct cost to the patient financially, emotionally, risk of procedures etc, and cost at the epidemiological level.

CT colonography is one of the acceptable equal alternatives to colonoscopy.

Let me explain it to you from a medical perspective. One can be fairly sure of the diagnosis, but stakes of calling it wrong are so high, that you cross the T's and dot the I's to prove that it isn't an MI for instance. THIS is how we are trained. Cost and insurance are almost never a factor in these kind of decision making processes.

Let's say they didn't: (and this same type of back and forth q and a I have observed of attendings teaching resident's with the below line of questioning

1)patient discharged with diagnosis of 'pericarditis'
2)patient found dead 1,2, 5 etc days later of MI
3) attorney in court: "Doctor, did you check serial troponins? etc etc etc?
4)attorney in court: "Doctor, can a MI present with crushing chest pain etc etc?"

So, even though sometimes the diagnosis appears to be obvious, when the stakes are high, responsible and thorough health care providers will follow this kind of a path to make sure things are not missed.

No, WHOOSH to you!

I don't want it to have to have line of sight to my face. What a fricking step back. I can reach my hand into my pocket and touch the button to unlock. I can unlock in the dark. It is retarded and as someone who has owned every generation of iphones and ipads, I will quit buying them because of that stupid feature.

Convert photos to DNG in Adobe Lightroom and use the ability for it to check for file changes. Store on a Drobo with dual disk redundancy.

No, I disagree. As someone who has some background in computers/it/programming (programming in C and fortran for fun in college as elective classes) as well as being Physician Assistant taking care of patients, I think you are totally off track.

Your customer is your customer - the users and purchases of your software. That would be like saying that you develop POS software and the customers in the hardware store are your customers ... . You thinking you know better than the medical professional as to how the program should work for me is the same as me telling you what development language or database backend you should use.

Listen to your customers ... highly educated physicians, physician assistants, nurse practioners who are highly analytic when they tell you there are good reasons to do things certain ways.

You act like easy to use and safe for patients are contradictions ...

I contend that I have used applications that were safe for patients that were easy to use and not easy to use and vice versa.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-24/tip-box-fed-made-it-possible-many-people-leak-it

The news of Flickr's death has been greatly exagerated ...

what robots can do is achieve automation is standard settings. No two patients anatomy is exactly alike. Common wisdom in surgical culture is that any monkey or individual can do a simple surgery. That is not what you need people for. You need people for the *judgement* of what to do in certain situations. To appropriately assess and make the right medical judgement during surgery when someone's life is on the line is not something that will be done autonomously by robots.

From health care professional standpoint:

Blaming robots for bad surgical outcomes is like blaming PCs for a virus or an accidentally deleted system file.

Surgeons are people. People have the ability to make mistakes. If you make a mistake with your computer, you lose some photos, or trash your hard drive etc.
If you make an accidental mistake as a surgeon -- whether done open or robotically -- bad things happen to people.

Thus, just like on here people say IANAL and that you should get *good* legal advice. You should go to surgeons that a large experience. With more experience, there is less chance of bad outcomes happening.

All the imagining of humans fails to grasp the divine. We have a loving heavenly Creator who created us and cares for us. God has been maligned by Satan and many humans over the centuries to the point that people now believe that he didn't create us, or if he did that he is somehow evil and attribute to him the evil of this world that is from Satan. Jesus cares for you, loves you and desires to save. God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son to die on a cross that he could fully demonstrate how much love he has for humans to try and save them from their sin and Satan's deceptions.

Just because you can't prove we were created doesn't make it less so. God spoke and created us.

"This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians - since every Israeli civilian is also a military reservist, these groups state that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian in the traditional sense."

Which is just their justification for murder. Targeting civilians because they just might be able to be in the military at some point ... puhleasse.