Site Presented By
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
Readers defend Ian McEwan's "Atonement" and argue that computers should never replace doctors.
Apr 15, 2002 | Read "Robo-docs"
I have to say, I think turning diagnosis over to computers is a terrible idea. Even if a computer may have a higher "success rate" than a doctor, there can still be cases that would be obvious even to a resident that a computer might be incorrect about. It would only take one case where a computer sent a patient in for brain surgery to treat what turned out to be a head cold before the entire country got behind even inexperienced doctors as an alternative to computers.
Far better to provide computer-based diagnostic tools that are capable of being used by doctors themselves to "red flag" cases for follow-ups or possible further tests. Ideally, such computer tools would be capable of providing additional information to a doctor about why they flagged a particular case, so the doctor could have more information with which to form an opinion. Why not create tools that help doctors do their jobs better, instead of trying to replace them?
-- Andrew Norris
Ivan Oransky's call for computers to be the main instruments of medical decision making is positively breathtaking in its simple-mindedness and naiveté. While it is true that needless medical errors are a problem of catastrophic proportions, the sort of reliance on the computer that Oransky proposes is no solution at all. To reason from the premise that "doctors make needless errors" to the conclusion that using the computer will remove human error may say something about the reasoning abilities of doctors, but it does not build the case that Oransky thinks he is making.
On Oransky's premises, we might as well delegate to computers the authority to grant or deny mortgage applications, grant or deny admissions to college, render verdicts in trials and decide whether or not to declare war. Oransky seems to have derived his strange misunderstandings about the capabilities of computers from science fiction. What he seems to hope they can do is something that does not exist in real life.
As to removing humans from the equation, where does Oransky think computers get their information to begin with? Computer data, as everyone but Oransky knows, may be flawed, and in a way that the computer cannot detect. For that matter, who programs them to process the data, of whatever quality it may be? A computer with flawed data or flawed programs is capable of making errors every bit as terrible as those Oransky is concerned about right now. Anyone who doubts that should see some of the nonsensical comments that are returned when running Microsoft Word's grammar and spell check feature.
As a technical writer who has spent most of a 16-year career in and around data-processing environments, I can assure Oransky that the problems to be found in both programming and data entry are an absolute bar to the computer becoming the magic solution that he hopes for. Computers are a valuable resource, yes. They are not a substitute for attentive and knowledgeable professionals.
-- Michael Huggins
