Medicine and the Machine

Interesting and thought-provoking : re: AI and decreasing the doctors’ workload. What about nurses? Re: hospital at home idea: As nurse who has done pediatric home care, I understand the benefits of having the patient at home with nurses providing the care-giving parents a break-to go to work, school, and/or sleep through the night. This “hospital at home” sounds like a win-win situation for the patient and the hospital; however, the discussion re: implementation are a little fuzzy-especially as it relates to the complex patient (IVs, medications, monitors, and other equipment). Having a doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist visit periodically isn’t the same as having them there as they would be in a hospital or other healthcare facility. It sounds as though the patient needs a spouse, partner, or other adult who is willing and able to take on all these responsibilities. Will that person have to stop working outside the home, take care of children, shop, clean? What about documentation? Will the home have a computer connected with the hospital’s EHR? Will a family member be sued for forgetting to give a medication or doing something wrong?? I’m assuming that the hospital will still get paid (while the majority of the care is done by the family.)

The “Rogue” episode alone is enough to justify a one star. Experts who state “I know the truth” on complex rapidly evolving medical situations should be exposed as the problem. Anyone who disagreed with them is a problem. Only the “experts” have a right to speak up. Those of you who are not in our club, just be quiet. So many of the “truths” once advanced as “settled science” and unassailable are now being re-visited as potentially wrong just like hundreds of medical “truths” that had to be corrected after decades of damage to the public. Those were “truths” imposed on us by medical professional. Everything in medicine is or should be open for discussion and debate. These two so-called academics rail against ad hominem attacks but never miss an opportunity to attach pejorative adjectives (“right wing”) to those who disagree. The problem isn’t the perspective of these two—they have a right to be heard….it’s their not so subtle expectation that censorship THEY get to define is needed and justified. They couch it it terms of civility but that misses the fundamental point that they want to stop opposing views. What justifies this? “We need to protect the reputations of our institutions” and ban what they call intellectual arrogance. Nothing related to Covid rises to the level of certainty of gravity. Stop it. Freedom of expression can be messy and uncomfortable but Id rather that than the alternative of letting these “learned men” decide for all of us what is mis/dis information requiring the censorship or ridicule they get to impose.

What a combo. First episode, Dr Hanna Key, drew me in and Drs Topol and Verghese easy banter and thought-provoking questions will keep me coming back. Thank you both!

Whether you’re well established as someone innovating at the intersection of medicine and AI, or just getting started as a catalyst for change - this is a must-listen podcast for you! Dr. Topol and Dr. Verghese do an incredible job leading conversations that cover a huge breadth of topics related to the ins and outs of successfully navigating an ever changing healthcare landscape - with leaders who are actually in the field themselves. Highly recommend listening and subscribing!