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.
Scott, C.,(2016)Is da Vinci Robotic Surgery a Revolution or a Rip-off? Retrieved
How Does the da Vinci Robotic Surgery Work?(n.d.) Retrieved from:
Abate, C.,(2015)Perspectives of Surgical Teams.Retrieved from: