Once I heard an honest doctor say: “Doctors are just like children. The only difference is that their toys are much more expensive.” But maybe that’s only half the truth – you could turn it around and say that doctors’ toys are like pills: It’s completely impossible to see what they’re made of and how they affect us, so we take them because the experts say it’s a good idea. Many doctors don’t notice that by using the technological miracle cure they lose their intuition, routine and perspective, as well as the ability to communicate with their patients. I’ve witnessed this myself when I’ve seen how doctors use ultrasonic scanning to examine a baby in its mother’s womb.
                   The doctor shows the ultrasonic scanner to the patient and says: “Take a look: This apparatus can show you your child. It can measure the child’s head and the length of its legs, in order to see if the baby’s shape is normal.”
“Oh, really …?” The patient (who in reality is not a patient, but a pregnant woman) looks at the little screen, fascinated, as it begins to light up and the fetus appears.
                   “See? There’s the heart and there’s …”
                   “Yes – what’s that?” as she sees her child for the first time.
                   “It’s a little foot.”
                   “Noooooo …! Its so cute!”

One could say the doctor-patient relationship has taken a turn. Now, with the help of modern technology, there’s no longer use for a midwife, feeling the mother’s stomach or asking many questions. As technology becomes more complex, the world seems simpler. Doctors become like school kids with pocket calculators. Medical expertise becomes reliant on a box that runs on electricity. A good doctor used to be one who could sense complications; today he or she is a technician.

Here’s a little mind exercise: What if someone invented a machine that, by analyzing a drop of saliva, could tell a doctor everything that was wrong with a patient? If that day came, a machine like that could be sold to every doctor in the world. It would transform how doctors work. No longer would a patient have to make an appointment. He or she could just send in a saliva sample and the doctor could quickly and effectively prescribe the necessary medicine and treatment. We wouldn’t even have to ask whether the technology was a good idea - or necessary. Hard-sell marketing will take care of any doubts we might have. The incentive of reducing medical costs, including staff and training, would make such technology irresistible. One could settle for just a few doctors whose main function would be that of custodian of the technology. The job of the doctor – if you could still call anyone a doctor - would consist solely of operating a machine. At the same time, one should keep in mind what a doctor once told me: ”Most of the patients who come to me have nothing wrong with them and, in reality, they come simply to have someone take the time to look at them and show concern.” A good, personal consultation with a doctor is often healthier than any pill, so what would happen to society if someone invented a machine that could diagnose any illness from a drop of spit?

Video cameras and robot technology are beginning to be implemented in many hospitals, enabling surgeons to operate at a distance via remote control. I wonder: Have we asked ourselves if it’s a good idea that the surgeon needn’t look the patient in the eye or sense the atmosphere in the operating theater? What about miss-judged treatments and unsuccessful operations? How can the parents meet the surgeon who saved – or inadvertently killed – their child, if he or she’s doing his work from the other side of the planet? Emotions are important in a doctor-patient relationship. Meeting a person in the flesh creates feelings that can’t be created via an electronic network and video monitors. If we aren’t careful, an operation of the future could end up as a computer game. This is already the case in modern electronic warfare, where many so-called soldiers no longer are confronted with the consequences of their actions. Only abstract symbols show up on the computer screen – not the melted steel, destroyed buildings, smoke, blood, screams and dead bodies.

It’s difficult for the modern person to say no to technological development. Here is another of technology’s paradoxes. If you’re stranded in the middle of nowhere and need medical attention, then having access to a video camera and a satellite connection is surely an advantage. But there are still two problems: First, it’s obvious that a vast majority of the world’s population who could be helped by this technology cannot begin to afford it, and second - for those who can afford it – human contact between doctor and patient is often much more important than a precise diagnose.