Man vs. Machine

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/letters/robots-health-care.html

There’s no question that scientific advancement has drastically improved human life, especially in medicine. In 1900, a person could expect to live to around 47, with some variation based on race and sex. Today, we can expect to live to see age 80 or more based on the same criteria.

This is an absolutely incredible improvement we have seen over the last 118 years in the United States, and scientific/technological advancement is much of the reason we have seen our live’s extended by those 30+ years.

Many people today feel that the next step in improving our health care is adding robots into some care regiments.

The addition of machinery in health care has objectively improved my life and standard of living. I survive with Type One Diabetes because I have an Animas Insulin Pump to deliver my medication into my body and a Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor to tell me the level of glucose in my blood stream.

The difference between the machinery I use, and that which is under debate now, is that the robots in question will imitate human interactions for those they are provided for, but will not provided actual medication.

For some Dementia patients, an expensive robot with some lifelike qualities has been “prescribed” to imitate human interaction to improve the lives of this group of people who are in many cases, extremely lonely. This has had very positive results on the live’s of many of the patients involved. Researches involved say that although only Dementia patients would imagine these robots to be “real”, young people should not be dismissive of this idea, “Instead, they might consider how very real Siri seems to them.”

The questions then, are, should we allow robots to replace human interactions in medical care? Will imitation of our interactions, minus the emotions of love and care, have negative effects on patients?

My thoughts are that human interactions can never truly be imitated, and no matter how helpful these robots are, they will never be able to provide the benefits that would would receive through the care of a family member or close friend.

What do you think? Could allowing robots to assist in our health care allow us to achieve a better quality of life in some cases? Should synthetic interactions be allowed in any case? Let me know what you think.

Did Bush Shirk His AIDS Responsibility?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/george-bush-hiv-aids.html?ref=oembed

In the wake of President George H.W. Bush’s death on World AIDS day, there has been much praise given to the 41st president. However, advocates of the disease view his presidency with mixed emotions as a result of his response to the AIDS crisis.

He has received much criticism from leaders of advocacy groups in recent days, saying that he frankly did not do enough to combat the epidemic.

Former leader of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Urvashi Vaid said of Pres. Bush; “If one was being charitable one could say it was a mixed legacy, but in truth it was a bad legacy of leadership,”.

However, in contrast to his predecessor, President Reagan, who would not even say AIDS, he seemed to accomplish much. President Bush took two significant steps to address the epidemic, he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which forbade discrimination against people living with the disease, and the Ryan White Care Act, which remains the largest federally funded program for H.I.V./AIDS patients.

As a Type One Diabetic, I have never felt like it is the President’s job to address my disease, or any others. What do you think? Is the criticism fair? Unfair? Do presidents have the responsibility to take the lead on diseases like AIDS and Diabetes, or is that someone else’s job?