What Is More Dangerous: The Human Being or the Computer - Essay Example

In the context of Health Informatics, which is more dangerous: the human being or the computer Definition Health informatics lies at the intersection of a number of different facets of modern medical care: information science, medicine and healthcare. Health informatics "deals with the sources, devices and methods required to optimize the acquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information in health and biomedicine" (Linux, 2006). The tools of health informatics include computers, but also "clinical guidelines, formal medical terminologies, and information/communication systems" (Linux, 2006). While computers are the major tools of health informatics, human beings are those who utilize these tools and decide how the various elements of informatics should be combined. Human Pro Human beings are, in some senses at least, the most important elements of health informatics, and thus, when something goes wrong - the most dangerous. The most dangerous human element is the fact that information can be both entered incorrectly and then retrieved and thought to be correct. A domino effect thus occurs in which a single human mistake becomes a part of the system. As the human being is assumed to have entered the correct information, checks and failsafe systems do not tend to work with these kinds of problems. Thus a single piece of forgetfulness might suggest that a patient can take a drug when in fact she is allergic to it, with perhaps fatal results (IMIA, 2006). Human Con Arguments suggesting that human beings are not the most dangerous elements of health informatics include the fact that a single human being can only contribute a finite number of mistakes to the system. Even if someone was, in a hypothetical case, deliberately falsifying records within a particular health informatics system, many other people would be inputting as well. While human beings are likely to make mistakes, other human beings are likely to discover those mistakes. Computer Pro The argument for computers being the most dangerous is based upon two foundations. First, the computer is the major component of the health informatics system. Indeed, the whole process started and grew in complexity hand-in-hand with the development of computers hardware and related software. The danger with this "major component" aspect of health informatics is that if the computer malfunctions, or totally crashes, the whole system may lose all information. Health informatics may not actually exist any longer because of computers. Second, the fact is that while computers are incredibly powerful at storing information, they are utterly "stupid" at interpreting it. Thus if mistakes are made, either on the small-scale level by human beings, or on the catastrophic scale by computers, the computer itself is unlikely to discover the fact unless human beings have told it to do so. Thus the computer is capable of making enormous mistakes, and incapable of realizing so in an intelligent manner. If a whole group of children is said to have been immunized when it hasn't been, the computer is unlikely to recognize the symptoms of various childhood diseases that may occur among that group. Computer Con A computer is a tool, and like any other tool it works as well or as badly as the person who is using it. It is not the computer itself that is making the mistake, but rather then person that has programmed it, who enters information into it and who administers its network. The fact that computer mistakes tend to be spectacular in nature means that the danger involved with them can be easily identified by properly trained human beings (Coiera, 2005). Blaming a computer for a mistake within a health informatics system is akin to blaming a car for breaking down: it is the person that built or maintained the car that is to be blamed, not the car itself (Eglebardt, 2002). Argument The reality of the situation, especially from a legal point of view, is that both the computer and the human being have a vital role to play in the safety, or otherwise, of a health informatics system. In the vast majority of cases, the treatment of patients within both the NHS and private healthcare schemes works successfully. As a solicitor's firm that specializes in representing companies accused of medical wrongdoing suggests, "victims of medical accidents usually want an explanation, an apology, fair compensation and an assurances that lessons will be learned." (moore, 2006). One major challenge faced by the health informatics industry is "ensuring that only those authorized to do so can view your organization's sensitive data" (Mitchell, 2006). If health information "falls into the wrong hands" the liability that may be incurred by the company can be massive. Both computers and the human beings that control them and have access to them need to be perfected to control against such a possibility. Another challenge may be something as simple as an electronic signature: "electronic signatures take a variety of forms . . . advanced electronic signatures are not special, not any more secure or advanced that any other form of electronic signature." (Mason, 2006) The important factor to consider is whether the signature attached to a particular document has actually been put to it by the person who it claims to be. However complex the signature, this first element of identification is the most important. Interestingly, this human element is also the most difficult one for a health informatics system to actually adapt to. One might ask to see proof that it is the actual person, but such proof (visual recognition or voice perhaps) would defeat the whole purpose of the health informatics system which is designed to speed up processes and standardize practice. As Mason succinctly puts it, "the type of signature used is irrelevant". Here the complexity of the computer informatics system may lull users and providers into a sense of security that does not actually exist. Is the problem here the computer or the human being Both must be the sensible answer. The computer offers the veneer of security through the complexity of high technology, but that veneer needs to be appreciated (or rather misunderstood) in order for the problem to occur. Another possible danger is that the new fragmentation of care that the present government is suggesting may provide greater "opportunities" for patient records to become lost or mis-transcribed, with potentially catastrophic effects. The ability of technology to record medical information and procedures undertaken may enable doctors to instantly access a patient's medical history, yet this will only be a powerful tool so long as the information thus gained is accurate. Too much inaccurate information may be far worse than no information at all. The patient in the latter case will be treated as a common patient presenting the similar symptoms, whereas the patient who is linked to the wrong information may be treated in a manner that is positive detrimental rather than the likely neutral treatment of the patient with an unknown health and care history. One particular new part of health informatics that is receiving a lot of attention is the idea of consumer health informatics. As Slack ( ) suggests, the healthcare industry has been transformed over the last few decades, and "not the least of these transformations has been consumers' active participation in decision making about their own health." The health informatics that comes from the Internet is said to have moved the potential knowledge base from doctor/professional to consumer. As Slack continues, "this paradigm shift from physician-centered to patient-centric care and the impact of Internet access to health information has formed the basis for the development of a consumer health informatics". The dangers that come from such a situation are all too obvious. If the semi- or highly educated lay reader gains access to health information and then interprets it in the wrong manner, grave dangers may occur. At the least, some who tend towards hypochondria may discover new symptoms every day and be worried needlessly. Others may clog the healthcare system with unneeded office visits. Still others may not go to the doctor, thinking that they have "discovered" the cause of their disease and treated themselves accordingly. These are only the cases in which the health information is actually correct. The potential for false of misleading medical information on the Internet is great. While virtually all medical websites (both British and otherwise) have disclaimers saying that they are not offering medical advice (see Web MD), a glance at them would suggest otherwise. The potential for liability grows as greater amounts of information are available to more and more people. The question with this consumer health informatics is whether most of the problems lie with people of the computers. It appears that the type of person accessing the information is more important within the consumer paradigm than it is within the traditional informatics paradigm. This is because within the traditional paradigm the only people with access to the information are medical professionals, whereas the range of knowledge (and thus possible misuse) among consumers is far greater. At least with traditional medical informatics one can at least assume a basic level of knowledge. This is not the case with consumers. The Internet provides fairly basic types of interaction with the information: i.e. the consumer gets access to information and reads it in a fairly passive manner. There is no interaction with the computer in which individual patient information is entered that may be incorrect. The computer is very much the passive tool within the Internet:- danger arises from the misinterpretation of the data it gives. To conclude, it becomes clear that a mixture of human folly (either deliberate or otherwise) together with the tendency of computers to either crash or to offer incomplete/inconsistent information are the source of danger for health informatics. The Cartesian choice of either human beings or computers is essentially a false and arbitrary one. Both the successes and the failures of health informatics depend upon the delicate interaction of humans and computers within complex, and often rapidly changing paradigms. As the "intelligent" members of this interaction, human beings must recognize where potential weaknesses and dangers lie, and must learn to use the remarkable processing and information storing power of countries as a tool rather than an end in itself. Health informatics exists to aid in the treatment of individual patients rather than as an intellectual data storage and retrieval exercise. As long as the human beings remember this, they will be able to design computers that are both reliable and consistent in their help. ______________________________ Works Cited Coiera, Enrico. Guide to Health Informatics. Hodder Arnold, New York: 2005. Anglebardt, Sheila. Nelson, Ramona. Healthcare Informatics: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Mosby, New York: 2002. http://www.linuxmednews.org. International Medical Informatics Association, 2006. Mason, Stephen. "Electronic Signatures in Practice" The British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management. Vol. 23, no. 2. March 2006. Mitchell, Peter. "The no-nonsense guide to . . . access control". The British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management. Vol. 23, no. 3. April 2006. www.mooreandblatch.co.uk/site www.webmd.com Read More