3 ms·
I'm not sure what definition of appropriate Kaiser is using when they describe it as being appropriate to tell a 79 year old that he is dying via a robot
by uberman 8y ago
I'm not sure what definition of appropriate Kaiser is using when they describe it as being appropriate to tell a 79 year old that he is dying via a robot
- tantalor 8y agoAssuming no other doctors were available (hence the robot) the alternative would be to not the patient. Which is worse?
- neom 8y agoIf it was me: The doctors tells literally ANY OTHER human there first, and THAT human tells me. Robodoc can be in the room, I don't care, but robodoc does not tell me I am about to die, I would be livid.
- reidjs 8y agoI wouldnt really mind either way. Why do you need the doctor to be there? How would that change anything? You’re still going to die, why waste the doctors time by forcing them to drive over and deliver the news personally?
- neom 8y agoBecause dying tends to be a process, certainly if I was about to drop dead I might not care, but generally I would want to know about any pain treatment, changes in my meds, explain the process of dying to me. I would want to hear it from a specialist.
- nkrisc 8y agoMaybe you haven't been in a position where you're days away from death, but most people would probably want to have that devastating news delivered to them by a real person who is present with them. It's not a rational thing. Of course it changes nothing, apart from the fact they might feel better having the doctor there instead of receiving it through a crappy matte screen with tinny speakers. If you still can't understand that, perhaps you can't empathize with most people.
- eli 8y agoA phone call would've been better.
- jbattle 8y agoWait an hour til someone can deliver the news in person? This seems not that hard