I saw this article in the science section of the New York
Times that seemed very interesting to me. Particularly that it covers all
generations, new and old. The article is about a young Dr, Dr. Rajkamor who
grew up in India but got all his training in the US and from age 12 he knew a
lot about computer technology and felt very comfortable with it. Dr. Heineken,
an older doctor who grew up and studied in the US. Dr. Heineken has a
traditional training in medicine and interacts with the patients physiologically
and physically in old traditional way. He likes to physically examine the
patients, look in their eyes and talk to them and record his results on
hospital pads. He also teaches the style of medicine to all of the young
residents in the hospital and encourages them to use human judgment and
intuitions to connect with the patients and their diseases. In one instance,
when he was teaching a team of residents were working with a sick man with a
heart problem, and asked them to tap the patients heart with their fingers and
to understand and to feel his enlarged heart, rather than looking at a X-ray of
the heart that would have obviously shown his enlarged heart.
On the
contrary, Dr. Rajkamor prefers his Ipad or iPhone to share information from
medical sources for recording data or requiring pharmaceutical information. For
instance, when he had to administer saline solution to a patient who’s salt
concentration was low and was crucial to give the right amount in a short
period of time he used his Ipad for an immediate answer for the right dosage.
Because of his experience with technology at a very young age, he feels very
much at ease to use the computer in most aspects of his practice of medicine.
Even though computers can facilitate the process of gaining and transferring
information at a faster pace and sometimes a more correct way it might cause
shortage of relationship between a doctor and patients.
The goal
Dr. Heineken is to get these young residents more involved with the human
aspects of the Dr. and patients relationship while he respects the affect of
the computers in the medical world. Although he uses his cell phone and most
definitely computer machineries in all aspects of his personal and medical
life, he likes to weigh his work heavily on his knowledge of medicine in a more
organic way. It seems form the article that the patients enjoy having a doctor
like him.
Posted for J. Sears
8 comments:
I thought this review was very interesting. One thing she did very well was comparing the two doctors. She explained how their background differed and how they used the skills they learned at a young age in their work life. Jordan also did of good job in comparing how those differences affected each person’s style of medicine practice. She explained how the Indian doctor, Dr. Rajkamor, used his ipad to check doses, while Dr. Heineken chose to have more personal relations with his patients instead. Lastly, I thought it was interesting how Jordan presented the differences in educations. Even though they both went to school in the states, Dr. Rajkamor grew up until the age of 12 in India. This obviously had an impact in how he interacted with his patients. Dr. Heineken, on the other hand, grew up in the states and learned how to have more of a relationship with his patients.
I thought Jordan’s review was a lot of an overview of a story. It was not really a critical review of the article. I think Jordan could have improved by just having one paragraph about the summary of the articles and one about the effect of this on society. Also, Jordan could have improved by adding in her opinion about the article at the end. She did not really explain her point of view on the writing and the review would be very much improved if she did do that.
I thought this articles was very cool. I really liked her explanation of the two different generations because it is something we see every day. Seeing the contrast of the two is really mind blowing in showing that the older generation is more hands on and was more of a connection with their patients, while new doctors have a better connection with their computers.
-Gabriela Diaz
After reading Jordan’s article summary I was also impressed. She did a thorough job at giving an example of how Dr. Heneiken does his work. She says that he uses an old style of medicine, which at first confused me but when she gave the enlarged heart example it made perfect sense. She also did a great job at giving the Dr.’s back round of how he grew up in India and moved to America. This gave me a good sense of the who, what where, when. Finally, she did a good job in showing doctor Heniekens goal as a Dr., which is to get younger kids more involved in the human aspect of medicine.
One thin Jordan could have improved in her summary is explain more about the relationship between Dr. Henieken and Dr. Rajkamor. I don’t really know how they relate to one another. Secondly, Jordan could have gone into more detail about how Dr. Rajkamor was so great with technology. Was their a reason why he knew it so well?
One thing I found interesting about the summary is that I didn’t know that doctors who use an organic process still exist. When I think of doctors I thin of equipment and machinery and not bare hands and herbal remedies.
Maxim Izotov
Jordan Sears’ post review
Jordan did a lot of things well when she reviewed her article. One thing that I thought she did well was that she introduced the topic very well and explained how it attracted her attention. I believe that is very important because some of the points that she made, such as the fact that it relates to all ages, got me interested in the article as well. Another thing Jordan did great was that she included a background to the subject of the article, Dr. Heineken. In my opinion this is very important because I can understand better why Dr. Heineken’s relationship with technology is the way it is. Last but definitely not least, I found it extremely fascinating that she compared and contrasted Dr. Heineken’s and Dr. Rajkamor’s methods. In particular, I found it fascinating because she elaborated on why they actually have different methods. However, there were two things that I think Jordan could have paid more attention to in the review. The first thing of the two was that she gave a thorough background on Dr. Heineken, but only had a sentence of Dr. Rajkamor’s background. This lack of detail attracted my attention because I would have understood why Dr. Rajkamor does not prefer Dr. Heineken’s method. Second, Jordan said that the use of technology limits the relationship between doctor and patient. Obviously, this is very important, although it left me wondering how this would affect the treatment/healing process. Finally, I thought the article itself was particularly interesting because it got me thinking about the future of medicine, where literally everything could possibly be electronic.
Jordan did a lot of things well in her review of “Redefining Medicine With Apps and IPads - The Digital Doctor.” In her review, she included a lot of information about the different point of view of each doctor. As Dr. Rajkamor grew up around technology, and Dr. Heineken did not, it is clear where each of these different views originated. Jordan not only explains the origin of the different opinions well, but she does a good job in explaining the controversy surrounding the technology itself. She captures the two viewpoints very clearly and presents both opinions in an unbiased manner. Additionally, Jordan did well on summarizing the article and avoiding clutter and too much detail. She conveyed the information in a way that was east to understand and follow.
Although these were several positive components, there were a few things that I thought were missing from her article review. She could have done a better job explaining the different technologies used in the medical processes. She didn’t include information about the apps that can be used to make diagnosis and treatment more efficient. I also think that she could have showed more information about the “happy medium” that can be developed by considering both points of view surrounding the use of technology in medicine. Factors such as cost and accessibility to these resources could play a role in how they are used and how worthwhile they are in the clinical environment.
I learned a lot from reading Jordan’s review, and found it very interesting. I was surprised to find out how dependent some doctors are on technology, such as how Dr. Rajkamor needed MedCalc to find a treatment for his patient rather than knowing what to do without aid from technology.
Okay, one thing I have to say is that technology is definitely advancing…at a quick pace. But one thing I didn’t know is that our technology today advance to the point it can save people’s lives. Really…..an iPhone app can clearly listen to the heartbeat of a human being? An iPhone app can fit together necessary equipments to make a grave situation easy? I have to say……props to Apple and to the developers of the apps itself. Innovation itself is truly inspiring. If one can make tools such as apps that can one day save people live. Then, I might as well drop out of school and try to do it myself. I love how Jordan clearly defines the method the doctor used. A simple way less than to use an X-Ray in a surgery room which proves less risky of radiation towards the body. It is true these days that it is always true to believe in yourself when times come. And Dr. Heineken proved that statement. He used his intuition and logic to save someone from a near death. Even though we spend millions or maybe billions of dollars producing new equipment every year, we can just use simple apps on the iPad, iPhone, or even the iPod Touch to examine the patient themselves. If you think about it, here’s my theory, we may be able to deduct our yearly spending on the development of medical equipment if we just made simple apps. If I were Jordan, I would have added some contrast between the methods used by each doctor at the time. Then, I would add the results of the method to prove that it’s better to use simple apps than to use complicated equipments that are extremely expensive. Overall, I’ve learn quite a few interesting things from this article. Nowadays, the news only shows things with such sophisticated objects. But, this article clearly proved the world wrong. Sure everything is depended on technology, but that doesn’t mean technology should be in a form of such sophistication.
Okay, one thing I have to say is that technology is definitely advancing…at a quick pace. But one thing I didn’t know is that our technology today advance to the point it can save people’s lives. Really…..an iPhone app can clearly listen to the heartbeat of a human being? An iPhone app can fit together necessary equipments to make a grave situation easy? I have to say……props to Apple and to the developers of the apps itself. Innovation itself is truly inspiring. If one can make tools such as apps that can one day save people live. Then, I might as well drop out of school and try to do it myself. I love how Jordan clearly defines the method the doctor used. A simple way less than to use an X-Ray in a surgery room which proves less risky of radiation towards the body. It is true these days that it is always true to believe in yourself when times come. And Dr. Heineken proved that statement. He used his intuition and logic to save someone from a near death. Even though we spend millions or maybe billions of dollars producing new equipment every year, we can just use simple apps on the iPad, iPhone, or even the iPod Touch to examine the patient themselves. If you think about it, here’s my theory, we may be able to deduct our yearly spending on the development of medical equipment if we just made simple apps. If I were Jordan, I would have added some contrast between the methods used by each doctor at the time. Then, I would add the results of the method to prove that it’s better to use simple apps than to use complicated equipments that are extremely expensive. Overall, I’ve learn quite a few interesting things from this article. Nowadays, the news only shows things with such sophisticated objects. But, this article clearly proved the world wrong. Sure everything is depended on technology, but that doesn’t mean technology should be in a form of such sophistication.
Jordan did a nice job getting straight to the point about this article. She made it very clear there were two sides to medicine: using the latest technology or using traditional methods. I thought it was also good she noted the doctors were both trained in the US. If she didn’t mention that I would have thought the more traditional doctor was unaware of new practices and illegitimate. Jordan also did a nice job keeping the vocabulary simple, which made the review very easy to understand. One thing Jordan could have changed was how she introduced her review. By using first person it weakens her review. She also could have made a separate paragraph introducing both doctors, that way that information would not be jumbled in with Dr. Heineken. I learned that some doctors use simple methods such as feeling a patient’s chest instead of making them have an xray in this area.
Post a Comment