The United States of America is a country that is desperately focused on having the biggest and best toys. To think that that idea would change when it came to our attitude on health care, you would be out of your mind. Because of the complex nature of technology and all the benefits it has provided, technology has somewhat of a cultural authority. People have seen new technology work before and they believe that it can answer everything. Technology can indeed answer many of our medical problems, however there are also downsides that simply can't be overlooked.
"Advances in bacteriology, antiseptic surgery, anesthesia, immunology, and diagnostic techniques, along with an expanding repertoire of new drugs, gave medicine an aura of legitimacy and complexity"(Shi and Singh, 2008). New technologies often fell into place from other fields practice and doctrine. The discovery of anesthesia by Horace Wells a dentist in 1846 helped surgery take great advancements. Prior to the discovery of anesthesia, large doses of alcohol would be given to patients to help dull or numb the pain. In 1865 Wilhelm Roentgen a German physicist developed the use of an X-ray for advancement in imaging and diagnostics. These types of tests go hand in hand with us in the Community Health field and the whole theory of prevention and primary care. These are a few examples of how the actual pieces of technology help us, there are also positive side effects of new emerging devices. Consumers have high expectations for new equipment and thus increase their demand and utilization of these new, expensive, tools. This increased spending was never shunned by the economy and in fact gives it a substantial boost. It has also increased our access of certain pieces of technology. Before technological advancements were made we could only go to hospitals for the most recent practice. Now these specialized services are available in outpatient centers near you.
Although technology has seemingly only helped us out, there are numerous aspects of technology that are problematic. Like we stated in our original posting on our Political/Philosophical stance, Technology is indeed "two-headed." Technology is a strong contributor to the health care cost inflation we are seeing. Increased money is being poured into research and development of new machines and techniques. This increase in health care inflation doesn't pose much of a threat to the consumer because of the third party that is involved. People tend to overuse health care when they know that an insurance company or the government pays for the majority of it. Possibly the most popular knock of new technology is stem cell research. Many ask the question if we should be playing "God" by determining what chromosome goes where. Ethical concerns rise as to whether we should conduct these techniques to better our health, or if it is just going too far. We have gotten to the point in technology that many of these ethical questions are starting to come to a head. How long should we keep our loved ones alive? Is it worth keeping them alive considering the quality of it? Who should receive the testing of new technological procedures? The list goes on and on each as important as the next.
How important is it that we continue to be the first to come out with new technologies? In a world that knowledge can be accessed so easily via the Internet is it necessary that we develop all the breakthrough technology. Should we slow down the amount of money and effort we put into new technology, and maybe put it towards education, or even into a plan to create a universal health care program? Until we can answer some of the ethical questions we have approached, maybe a different use of the money is in our best interest. Can the United States of America take a step back not looking at profit or technological advancement for once and focus on health care for every American citizen?
Written by: Ryan Buenning
References
Campbell, D. & Gilmore, G. (2005). Needs and Capacity Assessment Strategies for Health Education and Health Promotion (3rd Edition). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Shi, L. & Singh, D. A. (2008). Delivering health care in America: A systems approach (4th Edition). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern about the expense of technology however how do you tell a person who could be cured that the money won't be used for their problem. Because we have developed so much good, how can we stop.
ReplyDeleteBut money is a problem. Even if the third party providers are currently paying for these services, the cost is passed down to all the insured.
So where do we stop, I don't know.
In my short lifetime, I have witnessed technology advance at amazing rates. I agree with your statement that technology is "two-headed". Dollars spent on research, testing and marketing could probably pay off the national debt. In the government sector, as tax payers, we really do not seem to have much say or knowledge of how research dollars are used. In the private sector, it seems much of what is raised for research (ie find the cure for cancer, etc.) is actually used to finance the advertising to raise more funds.
ReplyDeleteThere is something to say for the "Keep It Simple" theory, even in healthcare. While zillions are spent on drug research each year, the basics such as penicillin, hctz, metformin and insulin, continue to do their jobs pretty darn well.
The topic of who do we keep alive with technology is one that could generate pages of emotional commentary. It hits a nerve like abortion. Is keeping a brain dead individual alive on life support truly a compassionate act???
I vote to target funds for research to areas that truly serve the greater good for the country as a whole. Instead of creating a new robotic surgical device, for example, provide better exercise equipment to the elementary schools, and provide better health education to prevent obesity.
Good topic!!!!!
It's hard to say that money shouldn't be put into medical advancements, because health has to be a high priority. But given the terrible condition of health care today, there is definitely a need to look at where money is going. Lets keep the money in health care, but maybe instead of spending millions on the development of a highly specific, relatively rarely implemented machine or treatment, let's work on getting people free check-ups, vision care, dental care, and basic medications. Right now is a time for being practical, not ambitious.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree with 'Dunkin Dutchman' when he talks about focusing on being more practical in making things such as check ups free and care such as vision and dental more affordable. I think the health care system has grown into something that is getting harder and harder to control and we need to take a step back and see what areas need to be cut and what needs to be improved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, There's always going to be scientists, doctors, and the upper class who will continue to pursue higher advancements in science/technology regardless of how screwed up the system is getting. Because of that, the chance of us settling on a course of action that suits both sides is going to be tough to do.
I certainly think new technology in the field of medicine is an important thing to have. However, all of the money that is being spent is tough to totally justify. I feel that research for cures of cancers, HIV, etc. are more important that replacing machines in hospitals that are two years old and considered "old" (I don't know how often things are replaced, but im just saying).
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to completely disagree with 'Margaret,' however. Dollars being spent on research, testing and marketing would be nothing close to the amount of our national debt.
Health care is necessary and there most certainly should be money invested in developing new technology that can be used in the future to help all. There is a line though from what is practical and what is excessive. With the current economic state, there should not be funds directed for technology that is only for the select few.
ReplyDeleteAs with all forms of technology, the initial cost is very high, put as time passes the costs are reduced. This is something that is not seen very often in the medical field though because of the constant improvements and replacing of machines (as noted by tom). I feel that a lot of medical technology could be used longer and thus reducing costs.