One of the most difficult aspects
that our health care system has to deal with is people waiting too long to do
something. With the new advancements in applications and technology this
problem could soon be fixed. Very soon Iphones and other smart phones will be
able to monitor your statistics to a point where they know if you are sick even
before you do. Spurred on by inventions
such as the Nike-fuel band or other dietary scanners that help keep you in
shape before you realize how far out of shape you are. Mark Curtis who most
notably founded Foursquare believes that smart phones will entirely change the
healthcare system as it stands.
He believes that the role of doctors will change due to these new applications, “They will become coaches, rather than a source of initial diagnosis.” However will the impact of this new technology be beneficial, harmful, or widely ignored? Initially, WebMD sounded like a genius idea could keep many people from the need to go to clinics; however, once it started to relate every minor bruise or issue to cancer, thee site became largely ignored. Will these new applications be more accurate? Or will they remain on the same par as just an overlooked app that was never useful? Mark Curtis believes that they will be above and beyond what the average person would expect, using science to make people constantly aware of their wellbeing.
In fact I have many complaints about this article; first of all, I thought upon reading the headline that the app was already out, or at least in a beta phase, or maybe they had a doctor recommendation for that app, I was let down on both guesses. The article was entirely theoretical about how a developing technology could change the medical world. But in a way it does relate to our class as we are know using our phones and tablets to record our data instead of handwriting it. In the same way people will soon be using their phones, not doctors, to check up on themselves.
posted for M. James
LINK
3 comments:
I thought Matt did a very good job explaining this article overall. He was very clear in stating what the article was about and why this was so important. Although technology has been used for many things, it is funny that I have never thought of technology instead of doctors. He made this argument very clear. He also did a good job in explaining why using technology, especially mobile phones, is important. Most people, now a days, have phones, therefore it would be an easy way to monitor them. Finally, I thought Matt did a good job in being critical to the author, but using constructive criticism instead of just the reasons why the article was bad. He suggested that the author needed to be clearer as to the point of the article, as he, and probably many others, were mislead by it.
I thought Matt could have improved his article critique by rereading his work. I found a few typo issues and various grammar issues that could have easily been fixed with a quick read through. They were minor errors that could have made his critique better if they were not there. I also feel that this summary would have been improved by stating, up front, that this app they talk about hypothetically, is not real, or even in production, I thought this was a very important point which should not have been left to the very end of the critique.
Finally, I thought it was interesting, yet scary, to learn about this technology that will most likely be around in my lifetime. It is strange to think that doctors could be replaced by technology. That just does not seem right to me, but the world is changing apparently. Maybe it will be a good thing, but I have my doubts about it.
Maxim Izotov
Review of Matt James’ article on cell phones
I thought that Matt did a great job of writing his article review. In the first paragraph, he mentioned how large of a role technology plays in our life. I thought this aspect was particularly important because it made the connection to our daily lives. Next, I found it interesting that Matt questioned the theories that were proposed in the article. He debated over whether the invention will be harmful, beneficial or even ignored. Last but not least, Matt did a great job of critiquing the article itself. Instead of blindly absorbing the information it had to offer, he questioned whether the ideas were verifiable. In his conclusion, he mentioned that the app was not even developed yet, which in my opinion degraded the original article, making it unreliable.
There were only two things I did not agree with in the review. Primarily, I did not understand how the topic was related to cancer. I could not find any evidence behind the fact that cancer may be caused by this invention and whether the sources that this information is coming from are credible. Second and last, I was eager to hear more about how the technology actually works. I would be very interested in learning more about how the receptors or some other accessories would be able to receive the “sickness signals.”
Overall this was a pretty appealing topic to me. I am sure that in the near future such a product will be invented. Hopefully, it will do its job without side effects and change our life for the better. However, it will weaken the chemistry industry because of the decrease in purchases of medicine, causing chemists to lose jobs.
Tatiana Baxter
May 8th 2013
Chem II Block D-Odd
Blog Comment May 8th 2013
After reading Matt’s article, I found several things I thought he did very well. Firstly, I really liked how he introduced the article. I felt that his introduction made the article more relatable, and made me want to know more. I think that introductions are an important part of article presentation. Secondly, I felt that Matt’s inclusion of examples of such items (i.e. the Nike fuel band) were really important to our understanding of the article, and the overall ‘relateability’ of the article. Finally, I liked that Matt gave a background of who Mark Curtis is and how he ties into the article. I think that this was important for him to do so that Curtis did not appear as an arbitrary and unnecessary source.
While I felt that Matt did a great job, I felt that he could have included a little more information about how the product would affect the public (i.e. including information about if the technology could help specific people with certain diseases, or if it was more general). I also felt that he could have worded some things better in his second paragraph, as it was (at times) a little hard for me to follow exactly.
Overall, I was really impressed by the content of the second paragraph. Matt’s speculation on whether the technology would become irrelevant (like Web MD) due to a lack of accuracy, or not, was really impressive. I think that this really went the extra mile in summarizing the article, and it really helped me gain a perspective and opinion on the technology. Overall, I felt he did an excellent job reviewing the article.
Post a Comment