Hacker News Reader

Given how much human error happens in hospitals, I would be happier to have less pesky humans involved.

Given how many bugs (no pun intended) the average programmer is capable of inserting into programs, I'd be much happier with an adaptable-to-cockups human than a pesky "computer says no" entirely automated solution.

Unfortunately, medicine today isn't deterministic. A lot of decisions are made with 'instinct' -- a fancy word for intangible experience. Human error is always going to be an issue. What might prevent human error in the design of said automated systems?

It is conceivable that automated medicine would have a lower failure rate for common diseases than "instinct."

I can agree with that. But you've made two implicit assumptions here:

1. The disease is diagnosed and identified as 'common' 2. There are no other complications because of say alcohol abuse, or a genetic condition with kidneys and so forth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com