On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:36:17 +0000, Mike Williams
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Making the statis device cheap doesn't really affect its use for medical
>purposes,
The cost of the device determines its availability and therefore
affects how it is used medically.
If only the super-rich can afford it, then it replaces cryogenics but
is of little use to GPs.
On the other hand, if it's cheap, it'll find many more uses. When
there is any sort of complication during surgery, the doctor snaps the
field on and takes a break to consider the matter/contact a
specialist/bring in appropriate equipment/drugs/etc. -- or a critical
patient in an outlying area can be trans****ted in perfect safety to a
better-equipped facility, meaning a growth in narrowly specialized
doctors and hospitals ("Sorry, refer him to someone else -- I only set
broken *left* legs.") -- or . . . well, there are thousands of 'or's,
the viability of each depending on the cost/availability of the unit.
Each potential use brings up the question of potential misuse, which
is what I want to explore.
> but does open up the alternative uses which you say you don't
>want discussed on this thread.
Having all the potential non-medical uses jumbled together in one
thread does no one any good.
If someone wants to discuss the implications for food preservation, it
only makes sense to start a separate thread to keep the responses from
getting mixed up with those thinking in terms of snapping the field on
around a nuke a second before it detonates. (And don't get me started
on its application to child-rearing, with parents opting to take their
brat's 'terrible twos' in one hour increments over the course of ten
years.)
Starting a separate thread also allows the poster to redefine the
device's parameters, making it more useful or more limited than what I
posited, as appropriate for the application under discussion.
--
|
