A 26-year-old dental student in Connecticut died in an intensive care unit that was overseen by a remote "tele-health" doctor who pronounced him dead on a video screen, a lawsuit says.
That timeline reads to me like he was in withdrawal, vomited, and likely aspirated on his own vomit. All due to lack of actual human care in a supposed ICU. I say “supposed”, because that shit shouldn’t even be legal for tele-health in the first place.
Marketing be like “this service pairs expert remote monitoring with skilled bedside care” and I translate that bullshit as “we farm monitoring jobs to cheaper labor markets and they watch people die, on Zoom”.
Unlikely, without regulation against this. Fines are just a cost of business, since they are never, ever costly enough. Either a true penalty fine, or executives in prison, or both, are the only response to ensure change, here.
You mean five percent of the money they make when they decide these immoral choices? Which then gets appealed to a high court and reduced to one-tenth of one percent?
Totally depends. Usually in medical cases like this the margins for a hospital are thinner than you think. Healthcare gets so expensive thanks to all the middlemen.
It’s a bit different than a company pollutes river and it costs 10 million in fines but they save 30 million.
In this case if the family wins the suit it can open up even more until it becomes unsustainable. It all depends on what is established in this case, the precedent alone could be effective in banning it.
…wow
That timeline reads to me like he was in withdrawal, vomited, and likely aspirated on his own vomit. All due to lack of actual human care in a supposed ICU. I say “supposed”, because that shit shouldn’t even be legal for tele-health in the first place.
Marketing be like “this service pairs expert remote monitoring with skilled bedside care” and I translate that bullshit as “we farm monitoring jobs to cheaper labor markets and they watch people die, on Zoom”.
I’m willing to bet his family can likely win their lawsuit . Hopefully that will be costly enough to reverse this bullshit.
Unlikely, without regulation against this. Fines are just a cost of business, since they are never, ever costly enough. Either a true penalty fine, or executives in prison, or both, are the only response to ensure change, here.
You mean five percent of the money they make when they decide these immoral choices? Which then gets appealed to a high court and reduced to one-tenth of one percent?
Totally depends. Usually in medical cases like this the margins for a hospital are thinner than you think. Healthcare gets so expensive thanks to all the middlemen.
It’s a bit different than a company pollutes river and it costs 10 million in fines but they save 30 million.
In this case if the family wins the suit it can open up even more until it becomes unsustainable. It all depends on what is established in this case, the precedent alone could be effective in banning it.
I’d prefer legislation of course