Monday, March 4, 2013
InfraScanner
The InfraScanner presents an interesting new technology developed in order to have a portable brain scanner to use in the detection of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). TBIs are the leading cause of death and disability every year. These individuals range from sports players to military servicemen children falling to ordinary people in car accidents. InfraScan, Inc. created this technology based on near-infrared wavelengths, which penetrate skull and show the tissues of the brain. The largest downside to the InfraScanner is the accuracy, as the device shows different areas of the brain rather than a complete brain image, as a traditional CT would. The InfraScanner's portability is a huge draw. The size allows for the device to be carried to patients that are far from hospitals or the importable CT scanners, such as comatose patients and soldiers. The device also allows for patients to be scanned quickly, which is a benefit for children, as well as pregnant mothers who could not have a CT due to the radiation affecting the fetus but can have a brain scan through this method. Educationally, Carr presents a history of technology and how people throughout history, such as Socrates, believed that the brain was suffering for this ideal. Likewise, Rosen presents disorders that can root from the dependence on technology and the effects of the technologies. Aldous Huxley presents a similar view, stating "Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards." All three of these authors present valid points pertaining to the derelict state of the mind due to technology but I believe this InfraScanner presents a new technology in a way that the human mind alone could not function; therefore, this technology presents a innovative mean of saving lives, cutting down costs, and providing brain imaging , despite the flaws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that this device is cool, but I think that Rosen wouldn't like it because medical professionals might become too dependent on devices like this and would become unable to examine them if the device malfunctions. They would be too focused on these devices and would slowly forget the process they would need to go through to achieve the same diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteThe concept behind this technology is really incredible, though I do think there are a lot of further developments that need to be made before this can be considered a definitively useful device. Right now, the cost of its use does not seem to outweigh the lack of real use it provides to people with physical disabilities, seeing as they can only be used for a limited amount of time and in a very specific environment.
ReplyDeleteAll of these authors we've read and discussed so far--Carr, Turkle, Wolf, Rosen--while each providing very deep insight into the subject of technology from varying perspectives, all seem to view our growing reliance on technology as a bit of a concern. That being said, I think reliance on a technology such as this isn't the same as constantly being on your iPhone or laptop. If technology is going to change the prognosis of a disease or the lifestyle of someone with a disability, why would reliance on it be considered a bad thing?
I can see how Philip G. would think that this tool could make doctors dependent on it, rather than the larger, more detailed machinery; However, a doctor would still have to learn everything about the device and its functions to be able to properly assess the situation at hand. Also, certified doctors have been through so much schooling as well as training that one would assume that their devotion is solid and their motives are pure.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking about the authors we have read in this class, i would have to agree with Haley P.'s statement that this piece of technology is not striving to replace another, only to become more proficient. For split second decisions, the naked eye can do wonders. But with the help of this device, think how the accuracy of the diagnosis could be increased so readily. For this reason, I think the InfraScanner is a cool, useful, and progressive piece of machinery.
I agree that the InfraScanner is a great advance in technology that could be very advantageous for all of the uses discussed such as sports injuries, pregnant women, and children along with others. I think what I like most about the device is its portability that therefore speeds up the diagnosis process. The process of getting a CT scan done is not a quick one. You have to get an order from a doctor and then wait until the hospital or office is able to service you. The InfraScanner would allow a much quicker response, even on the scene of an accident, so that if something was seriously wrong the person could get the attention needed much more quickly. As was pointed out in class, I don’t think the InfraScanner should replace CT scans but be more of a preliminary action taken before the scan is available. I also agree with Haley in that the authors of the books we have been reading have stressed us relying too much on technology, but I think they may have a different opinion on a device like the InfraScanner because it is benefitting health and lives instead of just providing convenience like many other technologies do.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this device would be a great use in the field, but as we discussed in class, it's hardly a replacement for an actual CAT scan. My fear (and I think Carr's as well) would be too much dependence on this technology instead of actually using it as part of the diagnostic process. Now I doubt any doctor would actually use this and without checking for petechial hemorrhaging or bleeding or any other tool actually take this reading as the end-all test. Overall, I love this tool but more research and fine tuning is definitely needed before many people in the medical field actually jump on board but I do love the idea of this technology.
ReplyDelete