OnlineBookClub.org

VictoriaMcMillen wrote: ↑13 Mar 2018, 17:02 I do not believe that any responsibility would fall on VitalTech for simply offering the option to participants. I do think they should have sent an URGENT message to see their doctor and also one to their doctor with all the feedback they could offer to assist in the participants well being. I do think participants would have taken it seriously had they received the simple education necessary to understand the possible severity and implications. I believe the Final Notice is the equivalent to a doctors notice, given the outcomes in the book.

Kat Berg wrote: ↑05 Mar 2018, 08:15 ... to me it is more a perfect storm of situations. Increased accessibility to guns + the new technology + decreased interaction with others = more potential for murderous outcomes.

KLafser wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 09:45

Kat Berg wrote: ↑05 Mar 2018, 08:15 ... to me it is more a perfect storm of situations. Increased accessibility to guns + the new technology + decreased interaction with others = more potential for murderous outcomes.

I think this is an accurate reflection of the book - it IS a perfect storm kind of situation, including your added observation of the decreased interaction with others, (regardless of age demographic) which seems to be a byproduct of the technology age. The author did a good job of showing that VitalTech was trying to do the right thing and wasn't some villian-like corporation in it for just the money. This is demonstrated in their willingness to work with the FBI and to adjust the watch settings.

I don't know the right answer to the question about responsibility and I think it's a very tangled issue. The optimist in me would like to think people would not take the negative path and seek out revenge or retribution for (perceived) injustices but I know that's not reality. I do believe there is responsibility in diagnosis - and if the "diagnostic test" is run, then there is an obligation to communicate the results, in this case, the final notice. I guess my add on question is ... where do we draw the line regarding what is shared with a patient? It used to be, especially for severe news, that you had to come in to the doctor's office, be with someone so there was support in hearing the news. Receiving a final notice in conjunction with the isolation factor magnifies the issue.

ReyvrexQuestor Reyes wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 09:30 Vitaltech did not include a provision --- or rather, they would not allow --- that the user would solicit a second opinion as what we have in normal medical practice. With due respects to the efforts in making the watch an almost perfect device, technologically, I would say, the innovators have not thought thoroughly of the moral implications of the whole idea. To the Christian way of thinking, the concept is flawed right at the start. Nobody should usurp the power reserved only for God.

R-g-R wrote: ↑25 Mar 2018, 19:27 Ultimately, I believe that VitalTech needed to take responsibility and remove the Final Notice feature. I also believe that we need to return to humans, people, being the bottom line of any business transaction, rather than profit trumping commonsense and humanity.

melissy370 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2018, 16:33 I think VitalTech is responsible in some way. Maybe not for the initial ones but after they found the connection between the two they should have done the contact doctor option. It is different than a doctor telling them their prognosis because a doctor can make sure the patient has access to support systems. The watch in no way has that capability. It is true that some may not go to the support group but at least they were given the option.

DancingLady wrote: ↑03 Mar 2018, 17:09 I think VitalTech bowed to the pressure to keep the Final Notice feature when they should have realized that risk of revenge crimes, which had already happened, far outweigh the benefit. I think it would have been far wiser for them to change the notice to "see your doctor immediately." Getting a diagnosis of probable death from a person is far different than from a gadget. I think this would have made an enormous difference for a lot of people. Besides that, as they said, it's highly accurate, but not a guarantee, and some people might not bother seeing a doctor if they took the notice as fact when, had they gone with 20-30 days left, an emergency procedure or treatment might have given them more time.

britt13 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 16:30

DancingLady wrote: ↑03 Mar 2018, 17:09 I think VitalTech bowed to the pressure to keep the Final Notice feature when they should have realized that risk of revenge crimes, which had already happened, far outweigh the benefit. I think it would have been far wiser for them to change the notice to "see your doctor immediately." Getting a diagnosis of probable death from a person is far different than from a gadget. I think this would have made an enormous difference for a lot of people. Besides that, as they said, it's highly accurate, but not a guarantee, and some people might not bother seeing a doctor if they took the notice as fact when, had they gone with 20-30 days left, an emergency procedure or treatment might have given them more time.

It did say to call your doctor though. I think that they needed to have crisis help in place prior to the notice. Just telling someone to see their doctor, when they already know what that Final Noticed is, seems like putting a band-aid on a gash from your neck to your belly button.

DancingLady wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 20:22

britt13 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 16:30

DancingLady wrote: ↑03 Mar 2018, 17:09 I think VitalTech bowed to the pressure to keep the Final Notice feature when they should have realized that risk of revenge crimes, which had already happened, far outweigh the benefit. I think it would have been far wiser for them to change the notice to "see your doctor immediately." Getting a diagnosis of probable death from a person is far different than from a gadget. I think this would have made an enormous difference for a lot of people. Besides that, as they said, it's highly accurate, but not a guarantee, and some people might not bother seeing a doctor if they took the notice as fact when, had they gone with 20-30 days left, an emergency procedure or treatment might have given them more time.

It did say to call your doctor though. I think that they needed to have crisis help in place prior to the notice. Just telling someone to see their doctor, when they already know what that Final Noticed is, seems like putting a band-aid on a gash from your neck to your belly button.

Definitely, but my point is that they should not have any notice on the device that in and of itself tells the wearer they will die soon. "call your doctor immediately" does not necessarily mean you will die, it does mean you need urgent medical care. I think there's a big difference in how someone is likely to respond that way.

britt13 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 16:30

DancingLady wrote: ↑03 Mar 2018, 17:09 I think VitalTech bowed to the pressure to keep the Final Notice feature when they should have realized that risk of revenge crimes, which had already happened, far outweigh the benefit. I think it would have been far wiser for them to change the notice to "see your doctor immediately." Getting a diagnosis of probable death from a person is far different than from a gadget. I think this would have made an enormous difference for a lot of people. Besides that, as they said, it's highly accurate, but not a guarantee, and some people might not bother seeing a doctor if they took the notice as fact when, had they gone with 20-30 days left, an emergency procedure or treatment might have given them more time.

It did say to call your doctor though. I think that they needed to have crisis help in place prior to the notice. Just telling someone to see their doctor, when they already know what that Final Noticed is, seems like putting a band-aid on a gash from your neck to your belly button.