Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the machines-replacing-the-very-skilled-laborer dept.

Say hello to the hunk of plastic that could replace your anesthesiologist. Right now, only four U.S. hospitals are using the Sedasys anesthesiology machine to sedate patients before surgery. Johnson & Johnson has been cautiously rolling out the machine after winning approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2013. The FDA originally rejected the machine in 2010, but later approved after Johnson & Johnson agreed it would only be used for simple screenings--like colonoscopies or endoscopies--and only when an anesthesiology doctor or nurse was on-call.

The machine administers a measured dose of propofol to the patient, and the drug acts quickly. To keep patients safe, the machine is programmed with conservative parameters. Even the slightest problem--for example, if the patient has low blood oxygen or a slow heart rate--slows or stops the drug's infusion. According to the Washington Post, the machine has stricter limits than a human anesthesiologist would have.

http://www.popsci.com/meet-machine-could-replace-anesthesiologists

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Dunbal on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:30AM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:30AM (#182779)

    The machine administers a measured dose of propofol to the patient, and the drug acts quickly. To keep patients safe, the machine is programmed with conservative parameters. Even the slightest problem--for example, if the patient has low blood oxygen or a slow heart rate--slows or stops the drug's infusion.

    Yeah, because that's all an anesthesiologist does. It's really so simple a machine could do it. /sarcasm

    Oh and seriously, who would the surgeon blame when the patient dies on the table? Nope, the anesthesiologist is here to stay.

    I'm a physician and have been in the OR a lot. While it's true that most of the time the anesthesiologist is, well, not doing much. Playing with his/her phone. Reading. Studying. Even napping, sometimes... but they sure earn their pay when the patient gets complicated. And THAT is the patient that will die when the machine can't deal with the problem(s) before a human can get to the room. The easy patients will do fine on the machine. Heck, they don't even need the machine. Thing is when someone gets complicated they usually get really complicated, really fast. The problem is you can never really tell when someone decides it would be a good idea to check out, no matter how much screening you do, there's always one. So, should we just allow them to die because machines are cheaper?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by m2o2r2g2 on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:06AM

    by m2o2r2g2 (3673) on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:06AM (#182789)

    Unfortunately, society says... yes (indirectly).

    Everyone says we can't put a price on human life, but we do it all the time.

    The number of people who die because the system/ they could not afford the preventative treatments is substantial.
    The number of cuts being made in government spending even in the face of growing demand.
    The number of people we let succumb to their addictions.

    And then there is classic trolley cart problems...

    If we can use the savings from the machine to allow the hospital to run more surgeries in parallel, or make an otherwise unaffordable surgery suddenly affordable would you deny those people the right to life saving surgery just to slightly decrease (not remove) an already low risk (as anesthesiologists will still fail to save some patients too).

    Ethics, like physics, is relative.

    • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Thursday May 14 2015, @11:43AM

      by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Thursday May 14 2015, @11:43AM (#182861)

      show me a machine that can manage fluids, airway, drugs, allergic reactions, the surgeon pulling on something they shouldn't....
      and you may have an argument, machines aren't very good in flexible tasks

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:37PM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:37PM (#183044)

        Yup, and then you get the guy saying "oh but we're only going to use it for colonoscopies". You know. That admin guy, who never went to medical school and has no idea what a stimulated Vagus nerve can do. There's a reason there is a defibrillator in the room where colonoscopies are performed (or there should be).

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:41PM (#182946)

    I know an anaesthesiologist who lost a malpractice suit which went something like this:

    1. A nurse handling the machine drops and breaks a piece of equipment.
    2. It is sent to the manufacturer for repair.
    3. Repairman hands it to an apprentice.
    4. Apprentice screws up.
    5. Equipment is put back into service.
    6. The anaestiologist is not told any of the above.
    7. Equipment malfunctions and fatally overdoses the very next patient it is used on.
    (8. He says his lawyer sucked. I believe it.)

    Now, picture these sorts of things happening absent the anaesthesiologist. There would be more deaths. I want to say no company would risk the liability. But I know how the public (judges, juries, whatever else) view machinery and I recon a suit would be less likely to succeed because the machines are "magic" and "equipment failure" is ticked off as an act of God.

    I think that it will, sadly, be automated.