We’ve written before about some of the headlines praising robotic surgery:
Robot doctor – surgery of tomorrow
Da Vinci puts magical touch on the prostate
Cancer survivors meet lifesaving surgical robot
Robotic surgeon’s hands never tremble
Da Vinci is code for faster recovery
Surgical Maestro
DA VINCI ROBOT IS SURGERY WORK OF ART
Now even the news that a company is testing a couple of robotic-surgery-training-simulators “and expects the units to go on sale for about $100,000 by early 2011” makes news.
The AP reported it (this is their photo at left of the news conference) and the story was picked up by ABC News.com, CNBC, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.
Granted, a simulator that might help train docs in what seems to be the inevitable spread of this technology might be an important quality/safety improvement.
But the AP story that spread across the country didn’t mention any concerns about the medical arms race involving robotic devices, nor any questions about evidence.
Hold news conference.
Demonstrate gizmo.
Get nationwide news.
How easy it can be to get free publicity, without ever having people focus on some of the important policy questions at stake. But after this week, who cares about health care policy, anyway?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Stephanie Jewett, RN, MBA
February 27, 2010 at 7:51 amRobotic surgery – unbelievable! I was an OR private scrub nurse for years for a world renowned plastic surgeon – interesting indeed! Very good site – I happened to get here this a.m. just looking for further, interesting medicl blogs. I’ll be back. Stepanie
Bill Gleason
February 28, 2010 at 5:12 pmThose who can, do.
Those who can’t, simulate?\
—
Walter Lipman
March 1, 2010 at 12:16 pmAnd what, pray tell, happens when the experience of the medical practitioner with this special purpose computer mirrors that of all of those geniuses on Wall Street who wrote algorithms for the trading of securities backed by sub-prime mortgages?
I don’t know about you, but my experience with computers is that they are obsessively stupid and literal-minded: they can do only what they’re told to do. They are notably bad when put in the position of having to do decision-making…and isn’t the hallmark of a talented surgeon the executive ability to make correct decisions with rapidity?
When you hook something up to a logic processor, you start to forget that it’s just a tool; this is something done at your own peril…when one’s patients share that peril, it’s time to draw a boldfaced line.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like