The implementation of modern technology has exponentially grown in the field of medicine, redefining medical and health care services. Physicians utilize “a wide variety of positive diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative tools” in their medical practices (Bronzino 1). These advanced medical technologies range from electronic health records (EHRs) to mechanical diagnostic and examination tools, such as the magnetic resonance-imaging (MRI) and electrocardiogram (EKG), to sophisticated surgical tools, such as the da Vinci surgical system. With these tools, they are able to map out the bodily behavior of a patient and strategize the best treatment plans for each individual patient. Even with all of this growth, medical technology still continues to advance. The efforts to further medical technology are made in order to try and create a more productive version of medicine and provide better care for patients. Despite the present and possible future benefits, advancements in medical technology come with an abundance of issues. These drawbacks of advancing medical technology interfere with, or damage the practice of medicine, as well as disrupt established connections and relationships within the field. While efficiency is important to the functionality of medicine, achieving it should not jeopardize its structure, effectiveness, or safety. The cost to keep up with constant innovation and incorporation of medical technology could be very crippling to medicine, as well. To go along with those aspects of the medical field, medical and social ethics are put into question. Although advanced forms of medical technology offer newer and potentially more efficient ways to practice medicine, these innovations are accompanied by a horde of performance risks, financial issues, and ethical dilemmas.

Even with modern high-tech equipment, physicians encounter a multitude of problems in medical practices. One example of a form of technology that causes issues is electronic health records (EHRs). A New York Times article discusses the benefits of a disease classification database called for the International Statistic Classifications of Diseases (ICD-10). This is a new type of EHR. The author claims that this “new technology allows the field of healthcare to make drastic changes that streamline the system” (Hendricks); however, this claim is based on potential, not performance, nor possible issues. While the functions of this electronic health record database, along with others, are undeniably helpful, there are huge pitfalls that accompany them. According to an article on Gescienceprize.org, “electronic health records can actually make transferring information between physicians more complicated at times, especially when the physician who needs the medical records works in a different health system than the patient’s general practitioner” (Leventhal). Because there is a large variety of EHR systems, the type of systems utilized in medical practices/hospitals fluctuates. The problem with using different systems is that parts of certain systems are not compatible with other systems. For example, in Monmouth County, New Jersey, there are two different systems that particular hospitals utilize. One system is called Meridian Health, and the other is called Barnabas Health. Although hospitals that are under the same network can function smoothly, physicians cannot cross information over from one system to the other. This makes it difficult for physicians to communicate between hospitals that run on different systems, and can slow down progress with their patients.  

To go along with communication issues, EHRs also can cause time issues. According to a study published by RAND, “the majority of physicians who interacted with EHRs directly (i.e., without using a scribe or other assistant) described cumbersome, time-consuming data entry. For many physicians, voice recognition programs were not accurate enough to improve on typing. Although more senior physicians, who tended to describe their typing skills as relatively weak, articulated these concerns most clearly, data entry was difficult for many younger physicians as well” (Friedburg 35). Based on this study, both younger and older physicians have encountered problems with new EHR systems and equipment. These new systems have caused physician to spend more time on taking and correcting medical records, which leads to prolonged appointments and procedures. This time consumption contributes to decreases in efficiency in medical practices. According to Adam Landman M.D., “‘[technology] must be accepted and effective for users. If not, it can create errors by changing workflow’” (“Brave New World: World Technology Transforms the Medical Workplace”). Disruptions, even subtle ones, in work can lead to huge mistakes while physicians run tests, evaluate patients, perform medical procedures, or communicate with other physicians.

EHRs are not the only form of medical technology that has been reported to have caused issues. Administrative equipment has also caused problems. According to an article on Modern Healthcare, “at a MedStar Health hospital near Washington, D.C., [a nurse] misunderstood a confusing pop-up box on a digital blood-sugar reader in 2011, [and] mistakenly gave insulin to a patient with low blood sugar, which caused her to go into a diabetic coma. [The hospital] staff had earlier made a seemingly minor customization to the glucometer, which led to the error” (Rice). Also, “in 2013, a patient admitted to Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights, Ill., did not receive his previously prescribed psychiatric medicine for nearly three weeks during a hospital stay because the pharmacy's computer system was programmed to automatically discontinue orders for certain types of drugs after a predetermined time. There was no alert programmed into the system to let the patient's care team know the drug order had been suspended” (Rice). These incidents are a result of technological limitations. Technology can only do what it is programmed to do. It cannot expand its programming to adjust to specific situations like physicians can. These limitations can be very dangerous and will only become more dangerous as medical technology continues to advance. 

Like those forms of technology, surgical tools continue to advance, as well. However, these tools can be potentially hazardous. In a book on medical innovation, Margaret L. Eaton and Donald L. Kennedy write about how technology has allowed progression in many types of surgery, like open-heart surgery. The authors of the book write “open-heart surgery on a stilled heart (a state now achieved with drugs) using a cardiopulmonary bypass machine eventually produced good results and achieved widespread acceptance. However, surgeons discovered that the cardiopulmonary bypass aspect of these surgeries was causing morbidity and death from systemic inflammatory reactions, blood-clotting disorders, impairment of brain function, and/or damage to major organs” (Eaton). Despite accomplishing the goal, this advancement caused the effectiveness of the procedure to diminish. The end result led to a litany of other fatal problems within the patient that was treated.

Like current advancements, medical innovation for the future has similar potential downfalls. In Daniel Kraft’s TED Talks presentation about innovations in the medical field, he speaks about a new brain-computer interface. This interface detects and manipulates brain waves to adjust the actions and behavior of patients, specifically patients with ADD, or Attention-Deficiency Disorder (Kraft). While explaining the functions and applications of the device, Kraft mentioned that physicians would essentially be able use the device to dictate how their patients behaved. Simply put, this can allow the brain to be “hacked”. This form of technology could be catastrophic if it ended up in the wrong hands. Patients could potentially be compromised through the usage of new brain-computer devices. Technological advancements jeopardize the structure and effectiveness of medical practices.

Similarly, technological advances in medicine jeopardize financial stability both for the patient and the medical professional. To start off, patients suffer from advances in medical technology because of elevated prices. According to Gescienceprize.org, “tests using new technologies are sometimes more expensive rather than less, and many physicians order these expensive tests without considering the impact the cost will have on the patient and the insurer. This can actually drive up the cost of healthcare, as does the purchase of the newest equipment. These costs get passed along to the patient and to the taxpayer in the case of patients on Medicaid and Medicare” (Leventhal). Because newer technologies are implemented in medical practices, patients are more likely to receive more expensive tests, even if they are not beneficial to the patient. These tests drive up insurance rates and leave patients with an even larger bill to pay. Increases in cost could potentially impact whether or not patients decide to receive medical care. Like patients, physicians also take hits financially. In the study published by RAND, “some physicians, especially those who owned or who were partners in their practices, reported that investing in EHRs exposed their practices to significant financial risks. In particular, the costs of switching EHRs—which could become necessary due to factors beyond a practice’s control…Other physicians in practice management positions expressed concern about the ongoing costs of maintaining their EHRs. These upkeep costs were a particularly pressing problem in smaller practices that could not afford dedicated information technology personnel” (Friedburg 41). When it comes to technology, physicians have concerns with the cost of new technology and the cost of maintaining technology. Frequent advances in medical technology take away more money from physicians. Physicians must keep up to date with these advances and innovations in order to remain on par with hospitals and other medical professionals.  

Technology also has financial implications on other medical professionals, such as nurses and secretaries. Daniel Kraft, the speaker on TED Talks, suggested that mobile applications could enhance the medical field because healthcare platforms for patients. With these new platforms, patients conduct simple vital procedures and produce their own medical records (Kraft). Although these platforms may potentially be convenient for patients and physician, they jeopardize the job security for nurses and secretaries in medical practices. These new platforms perform the same tasks as nurses and secretaries. These applications could eliminate the demand for nurses and secretaries, thus leading to job loss and higher rates of unemployment. Medical innovations could have patients and medical professionals at a serious financial crossroads. 

In addition, technological advancements in medicine can cause serious ethical issues in medical practices. While part of a physician’s job is to treat patients, they must care for patients as well. According to the Hippocratic Oath, a document containing the proper aspirations and conduct that should be instilled in all who practice medicine, physicians must keep in mind that “there is art to medicine as well as science”; this portion of the Hippocratic Oath speaks volume to the humanity that must go with medicine (Tyson). The oath further states that “warmth, sympathy, and understanding” is just as powerful as treatment itself in medical practices. Compassion for patients is needed in the medical field in order to treat them. This key component of medicine cannot be exhibited through advanced technology because technology does not have the capacity to show emotion nor establish an emotional connection with a patient. According to Leslie Kernisan, “[it] is possible that the mechanical nature of the intervention may have an alienating effect...” (Kernisan 146). This alienating effect that technology can have on patients can lead to patient discomfort. As a physician, it is important to maintain patient comfort during procedures for both the patient’s sake and the physician’s sake. It is important for the patient to remain calm and comfortable in order to maintain hope and optimism before going into a procedure. It is important for the physician to maintain a patient’s comfort level to make sure nothing goes wrong during a procedure.

To accompany a patient’s comfort level, the relationship between a patient and a physician is essential to medicine. The use of technology in medical practices does not assist in maintaining that relationship. In fact, it distances a physician from their patients. According to the RAND study, “multiple physicians who entered their notes via keyboard described their EHRs as interfering with face-to-face patient care. Many of these physicians blamed themselves for lacking the ability to type without compromising the level of attention they could devote to patients” (Friedburg 37). The interaction between a patient and medical technology comes between a patient and physician. One of the primary care physicians, who was interviewed for the RAND study expressed that “‘[the EHR has] impacted my life incredibly, because I am not facile enough with a keyboard to be able to talk to somebody and type at the same time, and it’s too important for me to be able to communicate with my patients and see how they’re reacting to [what I’m saying]’” (Friedburg 37). Technology, especially EHRs, diverts some of the physician attention to their patients because physicians must pay close attention to the medical records that are being registered or medical procedures being performed. If they did not do such, errors could be committed in medical records and wrong treatments could be administered. The actions and reactions of patients are vital to the process of creating and readjusting treatment/recovery plans for patients.

The privacy of patients is also a risk, especially with new EHRs in the mix. According to the Gescienceprize.org article, “when records are kept online or in a database, there is always the possibility of an information leak that can lead to a devastating invasion of privacy” (Leventhal). Any online program or database is susceptible to being hacked or infiltrated. Because of this risk, the medical information and records of any patient within the online program or database is susceptible to being stolen or deleted. These records can hold any kind of information, from medical records to personal information. These online electronic record holders can be suspect. They could instigate huge ethical dilemmas in the medical field, if databases were hacked. Technological advancements in medicine can also lead a vast list of ethical issues. 

We can all agree that certain forms of medical technology are needed in the medical field. Some would say that newer and more advanced technology should be implemented in medical practice to make exams, procedures, diagnoses, etc. more efficient; however, advancements in medical technology open the window to new and more complex problems. It ignites controversy in medical practices. Even though advanced medical technology has its benefits in medical practices, it comes with a load of electrical, mechanical, and radiation hazards (Bronzino 31). These hazards can occur with any type of medical advancement, such as electronic health records, administrative machinery, and surgical tools. Likewise, forms of advanced medical technology can also lead to serious financial holes for patients and medical professionals. Advancements increase the cost of both medical tests and the equipment that provides those tests. Innovations also jeopardize the job security for lower medical professionals, such as nurses and secretaries. Also, it calls into question the current ethics of medicine and relationships within medical practices. The use of technology does not offer the same compassion that instills hope and optimism in patients like that of physicians. Simultaneously, physicians and patients can potentially become distant from each other. This is due to the interference of technology. Medical advancements and innovations void some of the attention devoted to a physician’s patients because physicians try to assure no mistakes are made in medical tasks. Along with physician-patient relations, the confidentiality of patient medical records is jeopardized because of the risk of electronic programs or databases being hacked. While I agree that some forms of technology are useful in medical practices, this assertion overlooks possible performance errors, financial drawbacks, and ethical problems.
