Could Computers Replace Human Jobs Soon?

[avant-garde]

Can't a computer do their job?

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Even if a computer system picks out the drug, someone still has to give the patient a consultation. I'm sure most patients are more comfortable talking to a real human being.

I don't think doctors are in any danger of being replaced by computers, either.

 

[junglebeast]

There are "expert systems" that mimic a doctor's diagnosis procedure, but these obviously cannot replace a doctor. Computer systems are always programmed to consider a limited number of factors, and when you take into account the factors that the computer didn't know about or ignored, the resulting decision could be considered idiotic. I think that an expert system might be a useful tool for doctors, especially during training, but it will not replace them.

Replacing humans with robots is not necessarily a good thing. Not everybody wants to be a cutting edge scientific researcher...and if you replace all menial jobs with robots, then the only jobs left would be highly theoretical jobs. People enjoy interacting with others, and robot replacements are usually not very good. Who likes talking to recorded voices instead of real telephone operators?

 

[Wax]

Computers can malfunction and there will always be someone required to monitor the system. Take airplanes for example. Would you trust technology alone to fly an airplaine without a pilot for you?

 

[avant-garde]

I'm sure computers won't get rid of all of them, but won't it replace a lot of professions?
You would have people that would "maintain" and see if things go wrong, but you wouldn't need someone to "man" each job, right?

For instance, robots do most of the manufacturing these days, not humans. However, you have a few people looking over and maintaining the whole factory. But that's way less the number of humans than before automation came along.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if a computer system picks out the drug, someone still has to give the patient a consultation.

Why can't a computer do that?

I'm sure most patients are more comfortable talking to a real human being.

So your point is that nothing will change unless people are comfortable with that change? I see no evidence for that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sure computers won't get rid of all of them, but won't it replace a lot of professions?
You would have people that would "maintain" and see if things go wrong, but you wouldn't need someone to "man" each job, right?

For instance, robots do most of the manufacturing these days, not humans. However, you have a few people looking over and maintaining the whole factory.

There are now lights-out plants, where the lights are turned off during normal operations because no one is there. However, places like that give people like me a job.

Coming soon: The end of fast-food jobs as we know them.

One of the stranger jobs that I've had over the last ten years was to write the controls for a burrito-making machine [Taco Bell].

 

[turbo]

Things change whether we consumers want the change or not. I have spent a great deal of time trying to get stuff straightened out between SSA and the IRS, and have wasted countless hours listening to recordings telling me how important my call is before eventually getting passed off to some low-level bureaucrat who tells me that they can't help resolve my problem or else gives me advice that directly contradicts the advice that the last low-level bureaucrat gave me. It's terribly frustrating and stressful, and the refusal of the agencies to coordinate has cost me thousands of dollars in unwarranted taxes.

 

[skeptic2]

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

There already are machines that automatically dispense pills into bottles but somebody has to load the machines and put the labels on the filled bottles. There still would be paper work, requesting refills from doctors and billing insurance. Legally these activities would probably have to be done under the supervision of a pharmacist.

 

[Evo]

One of the stranger jobs that I've had over the last ten years was to write the controls for a burrito-making machine [Taco Bell].

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

I'm confused... Without the roaches and mice, what would be the source of protein?

 

[Borek]

There are "expert systems" that mimic a doctor's diagnosis procedure, but these obviously cannot replace a doctor. Computer systems are always programmed to consider a limited number of factors, and when you take into account the factors that the computer didn't know about or ignored, the resulting decision could be considered idiotic.

Obviously you have not yet meet doctor giving idiotic diagnoses.

 

[avant-garde]

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

We'd have machines for that as well :D

 

[turbo]

I'm confused... Without the roaches and mice, what would be the source of protein?

Cut-off fingers from the soy processing plant.

One of my wife's co-workers wanted to eat at Taco Bell a few weeks ago, so she went along. My wife swears that there was no meat in the Taco - only some highly processed "stuff".

 

[SticksandStones]

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

There is a lot more to pharmacy than picking out the right drug.

 

[Moonbear]

There is a lot more to pharmacy than picking out the right drug.

Indeed. For the most part, counting pills and putting them into bottles IS already a pretty automated process, and likely will become more so once prescriptions are done electronically rather than as scribbled, illegible notes on paper that require phone calls to doctors to interpret. Still, even for that, I'd like to have someone else looking at the pills dispensed to ensure the right ones wound up in the dispenser and no computer malfunction has it completely messed up.

For patient consultations, you really never can predict entirely what patients are going to want to ask. It takes a human touch to sometimes figure out what they really want to know when they don't know how to ask their question clearly.

Pharmacists are also adding more to their repertoire as they strive to be more than just pill counters. They can do things like health screenings, teach a newly diagnosed diabetic how to use their glucose monitor, discuss with a patient their choices for over-the-counter medicines that won't have adverse interactions with their prescription medications. And, sometimes they are the person who helps persuade a reluctant customer to return to the doctor for another visit.

You also need someone who can override a computer that is too rigid. Any computer system is going to have built in safeguards about things like drug interactions and tracking which medications a patient is taking. If a physician switches a prescription before the last one is completely used up, a computer might flag that as a problem, whereas the pharmacist can call the physician and find out that the patient is no longer taking the medication that can cause an interaction. Or, sometimes doctors have good reasons for prescribing things for off-label use, or in unconventional combinations, and again, a computer might prevent that combination while a real person can discuss it and allow it.

And, most importantly, humans can learn from their customers. Availability of things like prescriptions packaged in individual bubble packs or color-coded labels for customers who have difficulty with traditional pill bottles or reading the labels on them is something fairly recently offered because pharmacists were there to listen to their customers and identify problems with the existing system that needed solutions. Once the computer dispenses a prescription in a childproof bottle to Ms. Smith with arthritis in her hands, she would probably have hard time handing it back and asking for it to be packaged some other way.

 

[Borek]

I'd like to have someone else looking at the pills dispensed to ensure the right ones wound up in the dispenser and no computer malfunction has it completely messed up.

While supervising never hurts, I think chances of human error are much higher than chances of computer screwing up.

You also need someone who can override a computer that is too rigid. Any computer system is going to have built in safeguards about things like drug interactions and tracking which medications a patient is taking. If a physician switches a prescription before the last one is completely used up, a computer might flag that as a problem, whereas the pharmacist can call the physician and find out that the patient is no longer taking the medication that can cause an interaction.

At the same time chances that human will overlook possible interactions are much higher - 1000 active molecules in the drugs means 10⁶ possible interactions. Human will never remember them all, computer will check if some combination is not listed as potentially dangerous in milliseconds. That's what computers are much better at than we.

I am far from saying pharmacists and doctors are not necessary, but I feel like at least some of the arguments listed so far can be easily reversed, or are in fact counter-arguments.

 

[Evo]

While supervising never hurts, I think chances of human error are much higher than chances of computer screwing up.

My pharmacy is computerized. They have low paid technicians that pour the drugs into the vials that the computer selects and dispenses from. OOOPS. Tech places the wrong meds into a dispenser, wrong medicine gets dispensed, unless a trained pharmacist does the final check to make sure it's right.

 

[Borek]

Tech places the wrong meds into a dispenser

That's human error.

Besides, how does the pharmacist recognize the problem? Using computerized GC/MS system? Link this system directly to the computer that controls dispensing.

 

[Proton Soup]

i more or less agree with moonbear. and i think the biggest issue with computers is that they aren't so well-equipped to determine whether the patient understands the DOS and DON'TS of their prescription. perhaps one day computers will be better than people at reading people, but it doesn't appear that day will be anytime soon.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's human error.

I think that's the point. Humans have to give information to the computer for prescriptions and the like. If there is a mistake and the computer simply does as it is told then the mistakes go unnoticed.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think that's the point. Humans have to give information to the computer for prescriptions and the like. If there is a mistake and the computer simply does as it is told then the mistakes go unnoticed.

Unless the entire production line is automated.

 

[Proton Soup]

Unless the entire production line is automated.

unless there is a mistake in your code. maybe a failed sensor. corrupted data. fried circuitry.

 

[robertm]

One of my wife's co-workers wanted to eat at Taco Bell a few weeks ago, so she went along. My wife swears that there was no meat in the Taco - only some highly processed "stuff".

I worked at Taco Bell for over a year. Their beef is the lowest grade that is legal for a restaurant to serve (this falls in the USDA "Utility Beef" category). It smells absolutely rancid when you cut the re-thermalized pre-packaged frozen meat bags open and literally pour the meat into a pan.

Their steak, on the other hand, is grade A.

 

[Borek]

unless there is a mistake in your code. maybe a failed sensor. corrupted data. fried circuitry.

Sorry, but are you implying that well designed, fully automatic factory, is less reliable then similar factory manned by hundreds of people working manually? I don't think so. There is always some margin for errors, but in the case of well defined, repeteable task, human workers have no chance against computerized, autmatic system. There are reasons why more and more things are produced without humans ever touching them - reliability is one of them.

 

[Proton Soup]

Sorry, but are you implying that well designed, fully automatic factory, is less reliable then similar factory manned by hundreds of people working manually? I don't think so. There is always some margin for errors, but in the case of well defined, repeteable task, human workers have no chance against computerized, autmatic system. There are reasons why more and more things are produced without humans ever touching them - reliability is one of them.

am i ? these things are just tools. they give us considerable leverage to do tasks with greater efficiency. but these tools still require operators and maintenance. they're certainly not foolproof.

it's not all bad, of course. this is the mechanism for building wealth. it ratchets up the stuff/human ratio, and humans like their stuff.

 

[mikapple]

There already are machines that automatically dispense pills into bottles but somebody has to load the machines and put the labels on the filled bottles. There still would be paper work, requesting refills from doctors and billing insurance. Legally these activities would probably have to be done under the supervision of a pharmacist.

Actually there's machine who can now print and put on label for the vials.

I worked at a community pharmacy and let me think about what needs to be done by human and what's not...

Actually there are not much real consultations involved in community pharmacies. All the information is printed on package, unless you are too old/lazy/blind to read it. And who will trust the pharmacists who are overwhelmed with filling other people's prescriptions?!? Also, your physicians always ask you what drugs you are taking before you visit them, they should know the drug interactions if there's any, BTW, the doctors are the one who knows the your body the best, you should ask them when they are available! (e.g. you won't ask the cook what healthy food to eat when the dietitian is next to you; you won't ask the shampoo distributor what to use when you are with your hair stylist.) It's funny to see "pharmacy website" is still advocating this banal idea of consultation at community pharmacy while it's almost unseen in the reality.

Drug refills should be done by the patients themselves! We don't like patients asking us to call the busy doctor office (which always put us on hold for 10+ minutes, making us look like the "incompetent-guy") just because the patients themselves don't want to deal with their own doctor! That's not how our system is made for!

Insurance procedures are usually done by the technicians, not the pharmacists! (They don't care about the turmoil.) Honestly, I think the procedure part should soon to be replaced by computers, because basically we just type out the info from a piece of paper (prescription and insurance card) and send it to the insurance company via THE COMPUTER! I always imagine each patient carry a thumb drive, which stores the prescription and his/her insurance info, when s/her came to the pharmacy, s/he just plug in the USB, and the computer check with the insurance server to see if s/he is eligible, and if the drug is available, if so and that's it! s/he can just sit back and wait! But the negotiations (such as getting med earlier for vacation, higher dosage) is what that needs human, I wonder if that can be done by the patient on his/her own.

The pharmacy I worked at has a robot to put the most frequent used drugs in vials. It's very easy to put the drugs in, but it's crucial to put the RIGHT drugs in the machine! Our model is stupid that it miscounts a lot of time, so the pharmacists just told us to recount! (what's the point to have a robot? to save sometimes on grabbing the bottle? I seriously think the robot computer should fix that!) I strongly recommend the pharmacy to use blisters pack instead of vial to ensure accuracy.

Anyways, it's destiny for drug dispense to be automated. (Hopefully insurance procedures too!) Drug dispense robots are seen in everywhere, especially used for mailing order! But it's USA here, although food is just as important as drugs, there are a lot of legal limitations bound to the later. If there is a way to minimize the potentials for any human errors or legal problems, the company should go for it.

Pharmacists are still needed to check and sign off charts. (but not as much, it's 80K to 120K for one pharmacist per year, it's too expensive especially during recession. Also, we need hospital Pharmacists for some hard-core consultations!) That's just how legal system works, so that if anything goes wrong, you can point a gun at someone! Also, interactions such as negotiations and consultations are still needed to be done by someone in human forms. (Computers are just too naive for some grey area!)

 

[bassplayer142]

I see garbage trucks around with robotic arms on the side. The driver controls it and scoops up the garbage can kind of like a dumpster.

 

[SticksandStones]

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

 

[Moonbear]

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

Exactly! This happens quite often. Redundancy in something as important as healthcare is important. Let the robots do the mundane work while the pharmacist is there to do the final quality control check, and verify that there are no drug interactions the doctor missed.

Another issue is dealing with compounding. While it's harder and harder to find a pharmacist who can do compounding, it's still important, especially for people with allergies to commonly used binding agents in pills and such.

And, then there are still plenty of people who can't even figure out the simple kiosks for things like getting bridal registries, so how would they input all their questions to a computer to get a prescription? What about those who can't read? Or who aren't very educated about health issues and need someone to interpret a somewhat jumbled and confusing question and prompt them to figure out what they really need to know, and then gauge whether they've understood the answer?

 

[mikapple]

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

I don't know what do you mean by doctors can't dispense medication. They can dispense whatever they want.

And I don't know if you have worked at the retail pharmacy, they actually use computer program to check for reactions. You will see tons of warnings and pop up screen when you use these program. And the pharmacists is the ones who choose which one to be put on the vials. So, checking for interactions is actually well being done by computers now.

People are getting medicine from different pharmacies with different pharmacists at different hours. There's no way for us to track all the drugs you are taking unless you are 100% sure you came here all the time. I guess the entity that knows best about your medicines you are taking is the insurance company, because they are paying for it, they track what, where, when!

I won't call it a redundancy, a double check is good for the system. But at the same time, I think patients should be responsible for the medicine they are taking. Also they should be honest with their drug history, because that's the most efficient way for the system, if he would prefer dying than letting a physician know he has ED, I don't want what to say.

 

[mgb_phys]

While supervising never hurts, I think chances of human error are much higher than chances of computer screwing up.

According to the IoM (http://www.iom.edu/ ) there are 1.5M prescription errors each year in the US leading to 7000 deaths.

But is also says: "in any given week four out of every five U.S. adults will use prescription medicines, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, ..., and nearly one-third of adults will take five or more different medications."

Really ? I suppose if they are counting an occasional aspirin but that sounds like a lot of drugs!

 

[SticksandStones]

People are getting medicine from different pharmacies with different pharmacists at different hours. There's no way for us to track all the drugs you are taking unless you are 100% sure you came here all the time.

People will rarely go to different pharmacies unless one opens up in a more convenient location. Different pharmacists at the same location doesn't matter since computer logs are kept of prescriptions filled.

Other than that, I think patients should be responsible for the medicine they are taking, READ THE INSERT! Also they should be honest with their drug history, because that's the most efficient way for the system, if he would prefer dying than letting a physician know he has ED, I don't want what to say.

Patients can't be expected to know what the inserts are saying. Also, there are times when medication interactions can be safely ignored. A computer can't make that judgement call. Pharmacists spend a lot of time in school to learn these things, and have to be licensed by the state. If a pharmacist makes a mistake, their license is on the line. Their career, their livelihood, everything could be gone. Who's going to be held accountable for a potentially deadly mistake if a computer is running the show?

Really ? I suppose if they are counting an occasional aspirin but that sounds like a lot of drugs!

I was at one point on five different prescriptions for about a three month period of time. I can see how this would be possible if you're taking a medication for say two different issues, and need medications to counter-act some of the side effects of these medications.

 

[mikapple]

People will rarely go to different pharmacies unless one opens up in a more convenient location. Different pharmacists at the same location doesn't matter since computer logs are kept of prescriptions filled.

But how many times would they pull out drug history log just for you? I hardly see that in a retail pharmacy that involved a big community do it since a pharmacy that with no other competitors around is very busy.

Patients can't be expected to know what the inserts are saying.

You know if you die because you took the "wrong" drug, as long as it's prescribed by the doctors, and it's the right drug on the prescription, pharmacists are not responsible for your death, even they are the ones who gave your the medicines. But FYI, most of the drugs in a retail pharmacy is not in lethal dose, that means you won't die from taking the chemical, usually people die because the wrong drug didn't fighting their symptoms, a woman will be okay to take a viagra if they want to. They won't die from it.

Also, there are times when medication interactions can be safely ignored. A computer can't make that judgement call. Pharmacists spend a lot of time in school to learn these things, and have to be licensed by the state. If a pharmacist makes a mistake, their license is on the line. Their career, their livelihood, everything could be gone. Who's going to be held accountable for a potentially deadly mistake if a computer is running the show?

As I said earlier, retail pharmacist is just a person for legal action if there's any. I worked in the industry for 5 years, I am still wondering why they got paid 5X+ more while I am the one who did all the work. I know they have spent many years in school studying, but I clearly don't see them using their knowledge that much. And, as we saw, a lot of work is now assisted by computer.

I truly think efficiency is what that keep the society moving. If they are going to school learning chuck load of information just for the legal protection of a company, isn't that inefficient?

 

[Borek]

READ THE INSERT!

Patients can't be expected to know what the inserts are saying.

So, what are these inserts printed for?

Also, there are times when medication interactions can be safely ignored. A computer can't make that judgement call. Pharmacists spend a lot of time in school to learn these things, and have to be licensed by the state. If a pharmacist makes a mistake, their license is on the line. Their career, their livelihood, everything could be gone. Who's going to be held accountable for a potentially deadly mistake if a computer is running the show?

So the system is safe as long as there is someone to blame and/or sue?

 

[mgb_phys]

So, what are these inserts printed for?

Lawyers

So the system is safe as long as there is someone to blame and/or sue?

God Bless America

 

[mgb_phys]

You could add some simple technology to reduce the risk of human errors.

My grandmother takes the typical mixture of dozens of pills (well typical of anyone in their 80s with access to healthcare) these are now packed in transparent blister packs with the one 'bubble' per day containing the mix of that days pills.

A camera system that imaged each pack and from size/shape/color determined what each pill was an compared it to the prescription would be easy.
It wouldn't be perfect although makers go to a lot of effort to differentiate common pills for easy recognition there is only a limited number of combinations.
But it could tell if a pill was missing/wrong number packaged.

 

[SticksandStones]

So the system is safe as long as there is someone to blame and/or sue?

I didn't say that. However, someone being accountable has a just a little bit more reason to make sure that the person getting the prescription isn't going to die than does a computer produced by some manufacturer X.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Pharmacists have a job that requires a lot of judgement calls on an individual basis that can not be safely or efficiently replicated by a computer. Pharmacists do more than just count out pills.

A camera system that imaged each pack and from size/shape/color determined what each pill was an compared it to the prescription would be easy.

Except that the same medication from different manufacturers can look very different, and two different medications can look very similar.

But it could tell if a pill was missing/wrong number packaged.

It probably could tell if a pill was missing, but I'm not entirely convinced it would be able to tell if it had 2 of drug X and 0 of drug Y.

Otherwise, that could be a good idea. If nothing else it could assist the pharmacist and an extra layer of redundancy.

 

[BobG]

Computers can malfunction and there will always be someone required to monitor the system. Take airplanes for example. Would you trust technology alone to fly an airplaine without a pilot for you?

Computers malfunction much less frequently than humans make mistakes. Humans would be safer having a computer control the entire flight regardless of how they feel about it, or whether they trust the technology. You just as easily find people that think flying is much more dangerous than driving, for that matter. How people feel doesn't always correspond to reality.

Probably the only way a computer is 'less trustworthy' than a human is when an error does occur. The human will probably only the make the error once in a while, even if he doesn't notice that he's made an error. A computer can reproduce the same error over and over and over, turning a programming error into a disaster.

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

Actually, doctors can't dispense drugs because it's considered a conflict of interest to both prescribe the drug and profit from the sale of it. A pharmacist can't dispense drugs from a doctor's office, either. The prescription and the sale have to be kept separate.

The closest the two operations ever get to each other is in a hospital (or in some non-profit medical centers, such as military medical facilities). The pharmacy and the medical side of the hospital still have to be completely separate entities, with the pharmacy simply leasing space in the hospital.

On a side note, a few states also prohibit a doctor's office from administering medical tests, such as lab work, MRI's, etc. Statistically, the number of medical tests requested (and charged for) by a medical office skyrocket as soon as they buy a sophisticated machine, such as an MRI. Doctor's should be focused on treating their patient; not on generating profits through the sale of drugs and medical tests. (Admittedly, a counter-argument could be made that access to the tests for patients that actually need them would be decreased if the general public didn't chip in for the equipment via unnecessary tests).

 

[mgb_phys]

Except that the same medication from different manufacturers can look very different, and two different medications can look very similar.

The same drug looking different isn't a problem (assuming your computer has an OR operator)
Manufacturers make similair drugs look very different - there are a whole bunch of rules/regs on how different the name and look must be.
Most (non-hospital) pharmacists dispense a relatively limited set of drugs. Yes there might be an anti-radiation drug that looks the same as prozac but your local pharmacy is unlikely to carry it.

A system that a-priori knows ,from the prescription, that monday's pouch should contain 3 red square ones, 2 white round ones and 4 pink lozenges is very easy to do.

 

[SticksandStones]

On a side note, a few states also prohibit a doctor's office from administering medical tests, such as lab work, MRI's, etc. Statistically, the number of medical tests requested (and charged for) by a medical office skyrocket as soon as they buy a sophisticated machine, such as an MRI. Doctor's should be focused on treating their patient; not on generating profits through the sale of drugs and medical tests. (Admittedly, a counter-argument could be made that access to the tests for patients that actually need them would be decreased if the general public didn't chip in for the equipment via unnecessary tests).

The argument I hear from doctors is that NOT doing the test and finding out later that the test would have saved the patient's life is a million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.

Actually, doctors can't dispense drugs because it's considered a conflict of interest to both prescribe the drug and profit from the sale of it. A pharmacist can't dispense drugs from a doctor's office, either. The prescription and the sale have to be kept separate.

Good to know, thanks for correcting me!

 

[BobG]

The argument I hear from doctors is that NOT doing the test and finding out later that the test would have saved the patient's life is a million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.

They're doctors. Their lobby groups are much more honest than lawyers' lobby groups!

 

[mikapple]

You could add some simple technology to reduce the risk of human errors.

My grandmother takes the typical mixture of dozens of pills (well typical of anyone in their 80s with access to healthcare) these are now packed in transparent blister packs with the one 'bubble' per day containing the mix of that days pills.

A camera system that imaged each pack and from size/shape/color determined what each pill was an compared it to the prescription would be easy.

I like that blister packs idea, I was doing that when I was in the hospital, less miscount. But I guess when you are an out patient, and as someone said, one person may visit a few doctors and they might visit them one on Tuesday, one on Friday, that's kind of confusing for these elderly, my grandpa constantly stares at his medication and doesn't know what to take... I saw a lot of pharmacists were trying to help, but the elderly can't even remember when s/he saw who... I wonder if doctors can live peacefully with a centralized system. (the USB with all their medical information, as an option thing for these seniors.)

And the camera idea is actually being used even at the small pharmacy I worked at. But it's not the real size picture, just a picture to show the markings which is hardly to be seen on a small pill...

 

[Negatron]

The same drug looking different isn't a problem (assuming your computer has an OR operator)

Or a few NAND or NOR operators :)

A computer could certainly do their job and do it much better. The problem is they can't do it yet, even though there is that possibility.