this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
56 points (83.3% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
4341 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This, this times 100.
I don’t know whether author has misunderstood what the Da Vinci is or whether he is intentionally misinforming his readers. From the way the article is written, one might have gotten an impression that it is the robot doing the surgery by itself. Which is total nonsense, of course.
Da Vinci is a system controlled by a surgeon-a human being- at the console. It allows procedures that would be otherwise difficult or more invasive, due to its three robotic arms being smaller size than human hands. Additionally, it eliminates tremor of real human hands, and the console itself has a sort of “pseudo-3D” screen, which grats depth perception compared to, say, laparoscopic surgical screens.
It’s been incredible tool in treatment many areas of human surgery, notably prostate cancer surgery and hysterectomy, among others. And it takes an experienced surgeon to operate it.
The article is EXTREMELY clear about what Da Vinci is and why he's grateful to it. It's your comment that's total nonsense
The headline is incredibly misleading. “Doctors couldn’t operate on my tumor” is patently false when a doctor DID operate on the tumor USING the robot. It’s deliberately stealing credit from the doctor and giving it to their tool. It’s the headline that’s nonsensical.
I agree. But at this point in time I'm judging anybody who hasn't yet learned to ignore the headline and read the article
Fair enough. But it’s still valuable to express annoyance at the headline itself, which is problematic as hell.