11–17 of 17 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Self responsibility . . . would help. The point of a lot of great tech is to help humans where they're weak. People in general are not very responsible nor do they remember well: That's why we have schools and calendars.
I don't the technology itself can do much about human weakness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This riles me every time I hear about it. I remember just watching one of the parliamentary committees on BBC Parliament and thinking why the hell are these people in charge of the biggest IT project in Britain. I often wonder why open-source can't provide a good and cheap solution to this NHS IT problem. I know I'd happily work on something that will benefit the health of the entire population. I don't find it too h…
It's not health it's government. The ministry of defence stock control project is similarly behind schedule and overbudget - and last time they tested it they had 8Bn worth of kit the army couldn't find. I mean how difficult is it to make a stock control system ??
EX: If your accounting software is more complex than quick books your probably doing it wrong.
>Likewise, he explained that around 22 percent of people don't complete their course of antibiotics, which helps to creates bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. "You have to change the way you deliver medicine." When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The thing is technology isn't going to help these 22% of people. Self responsibility and a little education would help.
Saying that to a diabetic would be like asking you: The thermometer says 98.6 F is that good or bad?
I don't mean to write this guy off altogether, his heart is in the right place, his statement about "products for people's health that they love to use?" I guess is on the right track but only because it is so vague.
I work in medical technology, I have a next generation device sitting on my desk right now. But you know what? When I go to work tomorrow I'm not going to worry about the diabetic too fucking stupid to not even have a passing knowledge of what their blood glucose level means. Better UI isn't going to get the Tracy Morgans of the world to get off their asses and give a shit about their condition. If a doctor telling you the ramifications of your condition doesn't get you to care, it doesn't matter that the UI sucks, because you're not managing your condition anyway.
We are always trying to solve the wrong problem," he said. "How can we make products for people's health that they love to use?
Yes, products people like will help, and I am glad to watch when those devices hit the market. However, you think the industry is focusing on the wrong problem? We have patients so poor they resort to boiling used catheters and this guy has the balls to worry about if the high tech devices are love-able? That just pisses me off. The first problem is and always will be access. Is that how consumerist our country is now? Basic knowledge can go out the door because people can't even be arsed to stay alive unless things are love-able? I don't care, we have bigger fish to fry, there are many orders of magnitude more people without access than people squandering access.
I know there is that line of bullshit that a more attractive product will sell more units and mean more capital for whatever else; but these aren't consumer products you choose to buy, you get sick and then have to buy it. There is going to be better overall ROI for both the medical companies and the healthcare consumer by getting substantial healthcare improvements out the door.
Edit: "Siri, my friend is having a spasm on the floor as his throat closes up, he is pointing to something labled EpiPen. My heavens, what do I do?!?!"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_...
>Likewise, he explained that around 22 percent of people don't complete their course of antibiotics, which helps to creates bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. "You have to change the way you deliver medicine." When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The thing is technology isn't going to help these 22% of people. Self responsibility and a little education would help.
I disagree. Imagine a bracelet that injects you with drugs, and only unlocks itself after the course of injections was completed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Imagine a bracelet that injects you with drugs, and only unlocks itself after the course of injections was completed.
Not only is that an ethical nightmare, complications arising at the connection site are actually quite probable and removing the ability to disconnect as needed would be a disaster.
Of course you can design a proper delivery/control system.