Media and Technology in Medicine

The relative newness of the debate of how media and the internet should coexist with medicine creates an interesting and evolving discussion. My generation was raised on the accessibility of information via the internet and electronic technology sources. I still remember my family’s first computer, an oversized (and now incredibly outdated) PC that would keep me entertained for hours as I would look things up on the encyclopedia software my grandmother gave me as a gift. It is incredible that today I can find information on everything, from clinical trials to disease treatment plans, prognoses, and the best doctors in a particular field.

I think that it’s relatively archaic for doctors to argue against access of information for their patients. Sure, things get misinterpreted and there will often be patients who will attempt to self-diagnose but it also gives patients a sense of empowerment over their healthcare that they’ve never had before. The beauty of the medical system is that although patients may come to false conclusions it is ultimately their doctor who will prescribe drugs and treatment plans. The reality is that doctors are over-emphasizing the power of the internet as a “healthcare provider.” Even relatively popular sites such as WebMD provide many possible differentials for a patient’s set of symptoms; it is by no means a diagnosis but a good way to gauge the urgency of a patient’s healthcare needs.

Additionally, I think it’s crucial for doctors to consider the likely evolution of healthcare as our nation undergoes what will likely be a drastic change in doctoring practices. If our country goes to a universal healthcare system doctors will be further overworked and the doctor-patient relationship will surely deteriorate as primary care physicians (an already underserved field) receive an influx of new (and likely needier) patients. It is astonishing to me that doctors argue that the internet is a “depersonalizing” or deteriorating entity for the doctor-patient relationship. Low reimbursement rates lead doctors to see more patients in a workday, so the days of long doctor visits of an invested knowledge in one’s patients has been reduced to a fifteen minute visit that results in a perfunctory run through of symptoms.

In addition to being a source of information for patients, the internet offers the great potential for patient records to be accessible at all times by the patient and doctors. Considering the great number of subspecialists that the average American sees these days a comprehensive list of a patient’s healthcare history and drugs could greatly increase the efficiency of the health system.


Another issue in Media and Medicine that arises is the prevalence of doctoring shows that offer an unrealistic image of the medical field and potential for treatments. I agree that there is a huge dichotomy between what is presented in these shows and what is actually medically feasible; however, I don’t know if the entertainment industry has an obligation to “inform” the public about medicine, this could be done more efficaciously by organizations such as the AMA or NIH (or better yet the government could place more money into public awareness campaigns and rather than cutting down screening guidelines it could practice medicine that will provide better health outcomes rather than cheaper healthcare).

The bigger concern should really be on how the news media depicts medicine. One of the points in our reading was that shows such as Grey’s Anatomy present unrealistic depictions of procedures such as organ transplantation, which usually occurs under very rigid guidelines. However, in my local newspaper The Miami Herald there was an article a couple of years ago about a young boy who immigrated to the US and lacked any familial support system and was thus not a candidate for organ transplantation. However, public outcry led to the boy eventually receiving the life-saving transplant. I don’t think that news stories such as these are any less harmful than the “fiction” presented in TV dramas since they both posit that healthcare functions very differently than it actually does. Yet I would say that it’s far more deleterious for the local newspaper to perpetuate these falsities since people tend to take these as truth.

Honestly I think that increased involvement of the media and internet in medicine will only continue to grow as our society becomes more technological proficient. This change (like all others) poses both benefits and challenges as patients will inevitably be better education but also face an influx of either false or exaggerated information that they will have to shift through. However, I think that it’s irrational to assume that just because some people will misperceive information that we ought to maintain a level of ignorance over society at large. So we should accept it, learn from it, and find ways to have the media make medicine more efficient and effective.