Article Critique In the article "would you have surgery at the hands of a robot" Nick Glass and Matthew Knight (CNN)deliberated about the Da Vinci Robotic Surgery System. The problem being used is whether the Da Vinci robotic surgical system was a better method than the traditional laparoscopic surgical method The authors discussed and informed the readers pertaining the highlights and drawbacks circulating around the Da Vinci Surgical System. The article cited statements and a brief history from the creators of said system. Glass and knight found that the system has reported to have a revenue of over 2 billion dollars. In this day and age, technology is very well apart of our lives, including healthcare. The Da Vinci Robotic System is a tele-operated robot which houses intruments used by a surgeon. This system is used to assist surgeons for minimal invasive surgery. The article starts with a casual tone, implying that the writer intends to keep the readers at ease. The main form of evidence that the writer gave was coming from an employee of the company, which can raise questions around the article’s validity., Glass and Knight did not explicitly state whether or not the system was better. Rather they included citations and claims from surgeons to support their article that was more around the highlights of the systems and very much minimal on the drawbacks. It seemed more of a marketing campaign instead of a discourse. The author mentions that the robot has done 1.5 million operations but doesn’t mention if all 1.5 million operations were successful. Researchers have found that the number of injuries and deaths associated with Da Vinci robotic surgery systems may be under-reported.Over the course of 12 years the FDA received just under 250 report of incidents related to robotic surgery. Investigators later found additional instances that were reported in the media or elsewhere but were never officially reported to theFDA (“How Does the da Vinci Robotic Surgery Work?”,n.d.) On average, Da Vinci can cost $3000.00 more than the traditional method and the evidence that it trumps other methods is significantly lacking(Scott,2016). A patient may be spending $5000.00 or even $10,000.00 more yet there will still be no assurance that the operation will go on without casualties ad malfunctions. The robot may house 50 instruments but that is no different than how many instruments another non-robotic, minimally-invasive surgeon would use(Abate,2015).The authors assume and imply that the robot has many unique and exclusive characteristics when it is not. Collectively, the article is written quite well and is adequately supported in favor of the system. Although the authors failed to mention the difference in price, and the statements came from the creators themselves and not the patients who were directly experiencing the revolutionary machine. This implies the article, may be at a certain point, biased. Articles must include statements from different perspectives to get an even viewpoint on the said topic. This topic is very much relevant to society since it involve technology and healthcare, and can help inform the readers unaware of the technological advancements happening. Overall, the article is interesting and yes, still needs a little bit more tweaking but it has done its job and it is up to the patients if they would have surgery done at the hands of a robot. REFERENCES Scott, C.,(2016)Is da Vinci Robotic Surgery a Revolution or a Rip-off? Retrieved from:https://www.healthline.com/health-news/is-da-vinci-robotic-surgery-revolutionor-ripoff-021215#1 How Does the da Vinci Robotic Surgery Work?(n.d.) Retrieved from: https://www.drugdangers.com/da-vinci/robotic-surgery/ Abate, C.,(2015)Perspectives of Surgical Teams.Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765621