Sorry, no. You don’t deliver bad medical news like that. While there may be some who won’t care, far more will find it bizarre and offensive. I know I would.
Could’ve been worse.
Could’ve been a singing telegram.
It’s not confusing, it is inflammatory. The implication is left that HAL 2000 told the patient that she was dying and it was purposefully written that way.
Yes, it was bad enough the way it happened, and yes the article did say that she spoke with a live doctor, but the headline was an attempt to outrage people who didn’t dig deeper and make it seem worse than it actually was.
Would it have been better or worse had the nurse simply handed the patient an IPad and allowed her to speak with the doctor? I don’t think either. Using the word “robot” was a shock attempt.
That’s exactly the joke I thought of when my wife sent me the article.
About the only way it could be worse is if the doctor sent the news by a text message. I think getting the news through an iPad would produce an equivalent amount of outrage.
I’d say the doctor walking down the hall to give the message in person might be a bit of a better solution. Don’t you agree? Or do you think breaking up by text is the way to go?
Was the doctor just down the hall, though? I would assume stuff like this is when they don’t have a doctor of the right specialty locally.
So the options may have been the doctor remotely or a nurse locally.
I absolutely agree. I think it is appalling for a doctor to tell someone that they are dying over video chat. He can get off of his ass and tell something like that in person.
The situation is bad enough as it is. No need to imply that a robot told her.
It’s not inflammatory, it’s just what that sort of setup is called. We used to have one in my office, until we laid off the engineer who was using it to telecommute from Florida.
If you read through it all, a doctor earlier in the day relayed the same news (no other treatment available, please consider options like hospice). She was there in person, and held his hands while they talked. This second doctor used video conferencing and confirmed what Doc 1 had said. It was not a robot. There was a nurse there as well. It was not the first time the family had heard that all medical options had been exhausted.
The family feels the way they feel about this. I can’t call right or wrong on that. I do think the story is misrepresented.
Even if this was the second time the news was told to the family, it was still inappropriate to have that conversation over a video chat.
Given identical circumstances, but the second opinion was delivered by phone, and not video chat, would you feel the same way?
Yes. This is the sort of conversation that should be in person.
I vote for a post-it note delivered with breakfast. “You gonna die. Sowwy!������������☠”
So, hypothetical, because we don’t really have many details about the situation:
The patient gets the bad news from Doctor Jones, who is there in person. The patient says, “Is there anyone else I can talk to? There must be something I can do!”
Dr. Jones says, “Well, Dr. Smith is the best in his field, but he lives on the other side of the country. I can send him your records, and have him call you with his opinion, but he’s unlikely to give you any better news.”
“Please, call him! I’ll take any hope I can get!”
What’s inappropriate about that situation?
Well, sure, one can imagine a situation where a phone or video call isn’t inappropriate. But if there were a good reason this conversation wasn’t in person, Kaiser’s defense/explanation didn’t provide it.
Oh! I didn’t know you can read the mind of the writer! 
How exactly do you know that it was written for that purpose, rather than sloppy reading on the part of the reader or perhaps sloppy writing (although I disagree)? This is actually a serious question.
Did you read the article? Right under the headline “Man told he’s going to die by doctor on video-link robot” (my bolding) is a picture of a robot with with a video monitor showing a human doctor. The caption of the photo reads
What part of “by doctor on video-link robot” is going to shock the average person? Most people are capable of reading and comprehending words and it would take
This was a device which navagates on its own, which is commonly – and accurately – called a “robot.” What word would you use instead?
No. The is a difference between having a human come in, address the patient and set up a video call and having a robot come in the room autonomously.
In the article, it quotes Kaiser as claiming they have a policy of having a doctor or nurse in the room when there are remote consultations.
No need to say “robot.” Video-link accurately described it.
Yes, the term “robot” is technically and book definition accurate. But it conjures images of 1960s Sci-Fi
Maybe to people who are old enough to remember the 1960s, but “robot” really is simply what these things are called. That’s how they’re marketed, and that’s how people who work around them refer to them. The paper was using the accurate terminology for the object being discussed.
"Dr. Smith’s office calling. I’ve got bad news and worse news.
“Oh no. What is the bad news?”
“Dr. Smith left a message that you only have 24 hours left.”
“What could possibly be the worse news?”
“He left the message yesterday. I just found it.”
How then do you describe the method that the video screen was sent to the patient’s room?
The reason this made news on BBC is that it was a slow news day. A person talking to a doctor on a simply on a video screen or via a phone call is not likely going to make the news. It made the news because a relative took a picture of the robot (the one shown in the article directly under the headline which stated the doctor was making a video call, and the even showed the video call in progress. The doctor was shown with a headset on.) The picture was shared on Facebook and picked up by BBC.
I’m not the editor, but it’s obvious that the robot was an important part of the story.
You have given no reason to demonstrate why a literate person who is capable of seeing pictures would be so mislead. It is not the job of reporters, editors or new organizations to make news safe against stupidity.
If someone blows right through words and sentences such as “video-link,” and “The doctor delivered the news through a video robot” and then picture itself, then they really shouldn’t be reading the news.
Also, you didn’t address this: