×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Surgeon Uses Google Glass and iPad To Capture Live Procedure and Stream It

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the cool-yet-gross dept.

Education 100

MojoKid writes "Google (and many other tech manufacturers lately), have been evangelizing the mantra that technology is here to enhance and improve our lives, not get in the way; in the truest sense to 'serve humanity.' Recent events and breakthroughs in the healthcare industry, which make use of leading-edge technology, illustrate this vision better than any marketing or ad campaign could ever possibly hope to. Dr. Rafael Grossman strapped on his Google Glass eyewear to become the first 'Glass Explorer Surgeon.' The procedure involved is called Gastrostomy, a process by which a surgeon inserts a feeding tube into a patient's abdomen. In this case, the good doctor performed the procedure endoscopically, such that he was able to display the entire procedure and the view of it directly as it was being performed. The opportunities for remote medical consultation, mentoring and even real-time guidance are obvious with the sort of technology that products like Google Glass bring to the table. It's always nice to hear stories of how not only 'quality of life' is improved but how lives are actually saved as a result of these magnificent inventions we create."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

100 comments

First Person (2, Funny)

thechemic (1329333) | about 10 months ago | (#44081325)

Google Glass is going to revolutionize "first person shooters". No respawns!!!

Re:First Person (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081421)

Glasshole.

Re:First Person (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081653)

Google Glass is going to revolutionize "first person shooters". No respawns!!!

I wonder how long it will take until some lunatic does a rerun of Columbine high or Dunblane primary and streams it live?

Re:First Person (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 10 months ago | (#44081939)

There are some pretty nice helm camera vids of dutch marines taking a vessel from somali pirates somewhere on the internet. No shooting there though. I imagine glass would allow to take those one step further.

Not new (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081369)

Oh wow, Google has invented a category of medical device that's existed for years!

There is nothing particularly innovative about "wearing a head-mounted camera during surgery" - surgeons have done it for years now.

The only thing "newsworthy" about this is that the "Google brand device" was used to do it.

Can't wait to see everybody slag off Google for claiming to have invented something that's been around for years, like they do Apple!

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081391)

Can't wait to see everybody slag off Google for claiming to have invented something that's been around for years, like they do Apple!

If Google was constantly suing other companies over patents and other IP, then I'm sure we would.

Oh wait, did you think Apple's decisions and actions had no connection to the way we perceive them? Ha ha, yeah, you would like to think that about your own object of fandom wouldn't you? See this is why I appreciate and like some things, but I am not a _fan_ of anything. Apparently being a fan requires discarding all objectivity and forgetting that causes have effects. So no thanks, I won't be deluding myself to support a corporation. It sure does seem all the rage these days though!

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081497)

You're so amazingly superior and aloof. I'll bet you make high school girls swoon with your indifference.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081843)

Nah, today's high school girls are too sophisticated for this to work; I already tried it.

I guess you are not smart enough to read news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081585)

Google is being suing right and left .... using Motorola as a proxy.

Re:Not new (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081443)

I'm amazed it wasn't 3D printed or made in space by Elon Musk.

Re:Not new (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 10 months ago | (#44081763)

What's interesting is that he paired it with an iPad instead of an Android tablet.

They had to get it WORKING (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081973)

.... and not have the process lockup 2 minutes after it started.

Besides, they probably use Bluetooth for communication and Android's support for real Bluetooth still sucks to this day.

Re:They had to get it WORKING (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082751)

You're a liar.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081777)

Lets just call it what it is: Spam

Spam brought to you by Google (tm*)

* "tm" because Slashdot is still stuck in the dark ages and doesn't allow UNICODE. What the fuck, seriously.

Re:Not new (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 10 months ago | (#44081795)

True, but to be fair, it does appear to be "simpler" and lighter than older devices. That's probably due to lack of money available than it is innovation though.

Re:Not new (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#44082161)

A GoPro or similar would have worked fine and had better visual quality.

Nothing (new) to see here, move along.

Re:Not new (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 10 months ago | (#44082401)

Gopro, now partnering with Goatse!!

Proctological Assault. Showing you just why you should check for prostate cancer.
Interview with a fetus, See the world it lived in before being born.
Lung Cancer, showing what smoking really does to your body now in 3D 4K!!!!

Lot's of things to see, just whether or not you want to is the the question.

Re:Not new (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#44085697)

GoPro like cameras are already used in medicine. They already have head mounted cameras like the GoPro for this purpose.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44083825)

True, but to be fair, it does appear to be "simpler" and lighter than older devices. That's probably due to lack of money available than it is innovation though.

Why would a goal of cost saving / hitting a particular price point affect whether the changes to get there are innovative?

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081801)

Nobody would make that claim about google because the tech in question does not exist until apple invents it in 7 years.

!Sterilization (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 10 months ago | (#44082479)

So how did the surgeon sterilize the equipment? Please remind me not to go to that hospital.

Re:!Sterilization (3, Interesting)

zenith1111 (1465261) | about 9 months ago | (#44084011)

When devices with embedded electronics can't handle sterilization with gamma rays or electron beams, they usually can be sterilized chemically with stuff like chlorine dioxide or vaporized hydrogen peroxide.

Re:!Sterilization (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 9 months ago | (#44086321)

You don't sterilize glasses or Glass. The hats and masks are not sterile, merely clean. The sterile field is considered to exist from the neckline to the waist, and only in the front. Laparoscopy cameras are sterilized.

FWIW, the particular procedure chosen here was a feeding tube - i.e., a connection from the gut to the skin. The gut is inherently not sterile, and cannot be made so. The procedure is very low risk for infection anyway.

Re:Not new (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 10 months ago | (#44082579)

What google has done has made this device that's "existed for years" and brought the price down from $50,000 down to under $2000. And any one in any profession can use this setup. From miners to model makers.

Re:Not new (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44083473)

What google has done has made this device that's "existed for years" and brought the price down from $50,000 down to under $2000. And any one in any profession can use this setup. From miners to model makers.

50k? loook man. it's a webcam ducttaped to his head. what they did was go from 300 bucks to 2000 bucks for this application.

this article is boring. not newsworthy and a cheap fucking plug for google glass.

next week "man shoots porno with google glass" well doh. how about an article about hacking the os and the native api's on the device instead? you know, something actually interesting..

Re:Not new (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#44085705)

next week "man shoots porno with google glass" well doh. how about an article about hacking the os and the native api's on the device instead? you know, something actually interesting..

I submitted using Google Glass for first person perspective porn to Google during the #IfIHadGlass contest, they didn't like it.

Re:Not new (1)

elbisivni (233920) | about 9 months ago | (#44088105)

You clearly didn't see Scoble's Google Glass selfies while in the shower.

Unfortunately, in that case, the Goggles, zey did something.

Re:Not new (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 9 months ago | (#44085415)

$50k? Seems legit. Looks like the medical industry can be on the other side of the gouging for once.
Seriously, idiots think they get a deal when their insurance brings the $200 hopsital gown down to $100, even though it can be had online for $10. Fuck the chargemasters.

Re:Not new (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082609)

Great! The NSA is watching our surgeries now!

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082753)

It pisses me off to no end to watch this shit happen again and again. Idiots lamenting about things that have been around for years and have been repackaged in a pretty container with a bunch of pay-by-month or supported-by-ad shit attached to it inside of some proprietary paywall making the entire thing useless without money being constantly shoveled into the mouth of the OEM. All the while the entire system gets all sorts of media attention and publicity, even when superior, open platforms have been around and doing the same for eons. Consumerism sucks.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44084979)

I bet the price was dramatically lower.

Re:Not new (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#44085689)

Yep, I was installing boxed systems that did this exact thing in southern Georgia in 2001. This isn't even a little bit new. They also had other cameras that tracked heads and would follow doctors around the room as needed for another view point.

Telemedicine is old news.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44087937)

Oh wow, Google has invented a category of medical device that's existed for years!

You're wrong. Im pretty sure this is the first device that flashes his facebook notifications in front of his eye while in the middle of surgery. He probably made a witty comment on a friends photo just before going into theatre and wanted to see the retorts flow in. This is understandable. Why else would he want to wear Glass during such a procedure? Are you saying devices have been doing this for years?

Focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081377)

I'm not sure that I want my surgeon to Hangout with Glass any more than I want him checking Facebook on his iPhone. Sure this shows that it's "possible", in the same vein that it is "possible" to text and drive.

Why distract the surgeon to no advantage? If it's about telemedicine, you can easily set up cameras that are not attached to the surgeons face, and the endoscopic stream is already a video feed.

Re: Focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081629)

I know 2 doctors one of whom spends a lot of time in operating rooms

Some time ago his daughter was in a show at day care and his wife streamed it to him via her iPhone. He was in surgery at the time.

Re:Focus (1)

zmaragdus (1686342) | about 10 months ago | (#44082827)

Varying degrees of focus are required for various procedures. Think of brushing your teeth. Are you 100% focused on the action of brushing your teeth? Probably not. Now turn around and hand-solder some surface mount SOT-23 chips. More focused? You betcha. He specifically stated that he chose a very simple and straightforward procedure to test the setup with. He wasn't performing an organ transplant or anything of touchy nature. I doubt the surgeon was actively fiddling with the Google Glass and the HO setup throughout the procedure. Set it up, hit play, come back when the surgery is done.

How about (5, Insightful)

Yoda222 (943886) | about 10 months ago | (#44081381)

"Surgeon uses camera and computer to capture live procedure and stream it" ?

Re:How about (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#44081487)

"Surgeon uses camera and computer to capture live procedure and stream it" ?

Problem: that's only slightly newer than "surgeon washes hands before operation". Though w/ the Google hype machine, they might be able to convince people that soap and water are revolutionary.

Re:How about (1)

houghi (78078) | about 10 months ago | (#44083315)

Well, Google is a marketing company and marketing will convince us we have needs we did not even know they existed.

Next you know we will buy water in bottles instead of drinking tap water. Oh wait.

Re:How about (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 10 months ago | (#44081945)

Problem: this has been done for years. In some cases, it has been used as a way to get live consultation from a specialist over the internet thousands of kilometers away.

As a result, this wouldn't be news, this would be "business as usual". Which isn't going to get advertisement views.

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085191)

"Surgeon uses camera and computer to capture live procedure and stream it" ?

"Surgeon uses camera and computer to capture live procedure and stream it, NSA watches"

Was it an iSore surgery? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 10 months ago | (#44081383)

You know that Apple designers would be happy to hear how their products help make the world more beautiful.

Re:Was it an iSore surgery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081431)

The real question is Do Google Glasses deserve to exist??

Re:Was it an iSore surgery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081529)

It doesn't matter whether or not Apple or Google made the contraption -- the NSA will know about your emergency room trip to have the gerbil dislodged from your anus either way.

-- Ethanol-fueled

FDA Approval (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081407)

Did the surgeon obtain FDA approval before using the glass.

Speaking as someone who has written code embedded in Class 2 and 3 medical devices, before Google Glass can become a formal and regular part of the medical environment, code auditors will need to climb all over inside the design. Code walk-throughs? Whole floors of testers validating all code that touches the device.

Count on it.

Re:FDA Approval (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#44081561)

Do they need to do it with cameras they use?

Re:FDA Approval (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#44082167)

Nope, and if the Google Glass is just a passive recorder, the FDA needn't get involved. If it has anything to do with the actual procedure, then all bets are off.

Re:FDA Approval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081579)

How is it a Class 2 or Class 3 medical device? It was not being used as part of the procedure anymore than the Dr's shoes were. It's a passive recording device, and if it failed the operation would continue on just fine. Perhaps with fewer remote viewers, of course. But it's not critical to the surgery in any way.

Re:FDA Approval (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | about 10 months ago | (#44081621)

I have freind who worked on Artifcal Heart Admin application. You now to keep inventory of devices. FDA had to do full code review and audit of that software. Got him to leave the gig in less than 3 months.

Just because it is not a medical device (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081993)

... it doesn't mean that it can't CONTAMINATE the devices that are by just being near them.

Re:FDA Approval (1)

perrin (891) | about 9 months ago | (#44084473)

This would be a class 1 device, if it were sold as a medical device, which it isn't. While there are lots of requirements on companies that want to sell medical devices to hospitals, the hospitals themselves are under much more relaxed rules when it comes to trying out new stuff.

Getting Google Glass past the FDA should not be too hard, as long as it is just recording. Once you start using it to overlay data and navigate, you enter class 2 territory, and that's when things get hairy.

(I worked on quality assurance and regulatory approval for class 2 medical devices in my previous job...)

hipaa violation? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#44081429)

that is no joking matter

Re:hipaa violation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081459)

The patient likely gave informed consent for it to be filmed and shared. There are a lot of medical videos used for training purposes and those clearly are not any sort of HIPAA violation either.

Re:hipaa violation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081615)

hipaa Gangnam style

Re:hipaa violation? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 10 months ago | (#44081673)

hipaa violation?
that is no joking matter

I know it's customary on Slashdot not to read the articles before commenting, but here is the relevant part:

Before starting the operation, I briefly recorded myself explaining the planned event, and once again, talked about the importance of not revealing any PHI (patient's health information).

Do you think he broke any those hipaa rules? [allnurses.com] Personally, I would have asked the patient to sign one additional release form (as permitted by hipaa) just in case an identifier like their face gets accidentally released on the stream, but otherwise, I do think the surgeon is appropriately covered assuming everyone followed his spoken instructions correctly.

don't screw up (3, Insightful)

KernelMuncher (989766) | about 10 months ago | (#44081455)

If a doctor does this and then makes a mistake during surgery, it's an instant lawsuit. It's all being captured on video. Furthermore the attorney can claim the doc was distracted and more interested in experimenting with technology than with providing the best possible patient care.

Re:don't screw up (1)

John Doe (2938705) | about 10 months ago | (#44081475)

Oh, it seems my glasses stopped working and the video deleted itself! Damn bugs!

Live stream .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081603)

... will not erase it self.

Re:don't screw up (4, Interesting)

Dputiger (561114) | about 10 months ago | (#44081483)

I'm torn on that one.

On the one hand, good. Patients deserve to KNOW if their doctor fucked something up. Every now and then you hear horror stories about sponges, clamps, and god knows what else being left inside a patient, or a doctor that removes the wrong body part. Video playback could also help in a malpractice defense in which the patient claimed the doctor was distracted, intoxicated, or made a critical error.

On the other hand, knowing that there's a camera and live feed watching your every move isn't something I'd want to deal with while I was elbow deep in someone's gizzard.

The act of observing something changes the behavior of the people being observed. I'm not sold on this, save in particular training circumstances.

Re:don't screw up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082345)

On the other hand, knowing that there's a camera and live feed watching your every move isn't something I'd want to deal with while I was elbow deep in someone's gizzard.

Doctor zoidberg, is that you

Re:don't screw up (1)

houghi (78078) | about 10 months ago | (#44083381)

I am against it if it is because you want to be able to use it in court. That is the wrong reason. That is also the same reason many of the surveillance is happening under. 'To prevent crime.' is not a good enough reason to point a camera at me.
No, I am not a surgeon, but why stop there? Why not all the other places in the hospital? When you allow or even encourage to film operations _so it can be used in court_ will find places where it is also a good idea and that lowers the bar a bit. Next you know it we will have camera's all over the place. There are already too many.

That does not mean that filming operations is a bad idea. It just is if you do it because you might get asked to show it in a court of law.
Very soon people who do NOT do that will be suspicious under the 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you not allow it to be public.'

It will bring more tension to the (operation) table that will distract those people from saving my life. I need that part of your brain that is thinking about that camera. That could be the part that saves me or you or anybody.

Re:don't screw up (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44083485)

videoing every surgery has a good reason because every surgery is an experiment of sorts of what will happen.

Re:don't screw up (1)

Dputiger (561114) | about 10 months ago | (#44110083)

The fact that video can be used as proof, in any direction (innocence or guilty) is not a reason not to video, ever.

Re:don't screw up (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 9 months ago | (#44087483)

Every now and then you hear horror stories about sponges, clamps, and god knows what else being left inside a patient, or a doctor that removes the wrong body part.

"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

Re:don't screw up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44095155)

Video playback could also help in a malpractice defense

It could also help train legions of medical students to not make the same mistake. That's enough of a reason to videotape every procedure.

Re:don't screw up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081755)

Which is why he wisely decided to use it during a simple routine procedure.

Re:don't screw up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082091)

What surgery happens without video today? Even my vet videos every surgery.

That ship sailed with insurance premiums.

Re:don't screw up (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#44082183)

Endoscopic procedures are always recorded. That image would show, in gory detail, if there was any problem. The Google Gas doesn't change anything.

Re:don't screw up (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 9 months ago | (#44086377)

Not as video. Our GI docs shoot their required images - pylorus, antrum, maybe sphincter of Oddi for EGD, ileocecal valve and rectal retroflex for colonoscopies - and any abnormalities encountered, but that's it.

Too many viral Google commericals lately (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081471)

first there's the movie (which was ok). Now....

"Recent events and breakthroughs in the healthcare industry, which make use of leading-edge technology, illustrate this vision better than any marketing or ad campaign could ever possibly hope to. "

Geez. That statement sort of sounds like a marketing ad in itself.

Technology can be useful for good and bad purposes. Well known concept.

This medical procedure is no different from strapping an action cam. And if you think about it, a Hero3+Wifi or even a Teradek would have superior resolution compared to a glass--which is more appropriate for learning about the procedure.

This and a google hangout? Sounds like a plain infomercial.

see it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081513)

the entire procedure can be experienced here!
http://www.surgeonsimulator2013.com/

A brief response to the naysayers (3, Informative)

davesays (922765) | about 10 months ago | (#44081747)

Disclaimer: I do not believe technology is the best answer for everything. I am the most adventurous person in my hospital IT Department so I get to go in ORs all the time (I was there yesterday). 1 - No code review: the devices are not "part of" the surgery they are peripheral; they do not code review every digital clock, cell phone in a surgical staff's pocket, or every iPod playing music en-suite. 2 - No distraction: I can tell you these people are serious professionals. The doctor was no more distracted by the tech during the operation than a coder would be by his dormant webcam or an email message coming in. Regards, Dave

can we do... (4, Funny)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 10 months ago | (#44081753)

breast implants next?

Re:can we do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082431)

Funny, maybe, but you must know that watching a breast implant surgery will ruin the whole thing for you. Not pretty.

Re:can we do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082973)

What about gynecology consults ;)

Re:can we do... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 9 months ago | (#44086407)

Unfortunately, very few supermodels with anorgasmia show up in the average gyn clinic. More like 300+ lb diabetics with crotch itch.

An ipad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44081833)

Why would a doctor pair Google Glasses with an inferior ipad? Someone should sue him for malpractice.

Re:An ipad? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#44085769)

Because they were using Google Glass ... which proves them stupid as there are existing superior methods of doing this sort of medicine and have been for at least 10 years.

Besides, since it uses Bluetooth they pretty much couldn't use any Android device could they? Wouldn't want it cutting out randomly due to shitty drivers. The inferior iPad is far more reliable in that aspect than anything you're trying to fanboy it up for.

Ambulance chasers are going wild now! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#44081935)

I am very sure the ambulance chasers and medical malpractice lawyers are lobbying to having every surgery fully recorded and stored so that they can go through it with a fine tooth comb and play Monday morning quarterback in front of jurors. Insurance premia is going to shoot up another 300%.

Re:Ambulance chasers are going wild now! (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 10 months ago | (#44082031)

Maybe, but I like the idea for the same reason why I like police having cameras.

As long as it's not "Lost" when a lawsuit turns up. Hell, you could and probably should, have it automatically deleted two years later. Pilots have their last 30 minutes of communication recorded in the black box. In case anything goes wrong we have an amazing amount of data to analyze. Why can't I have that if there's a problem during surgery.

Insurance would probably go down too. I mean have you seen all those commercials about OBD trackers for cars?

Re:Ambulance chasers are going wild now! (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 9 months ago | (#44087507)

It just seems different to me because of the power issues. It seems helpful to have accountability for police not because they might make a mistake, but because with the power they have it is easy for them to abuse it. It seems to me that a doctor doesn't have that same power. I can't, atm, think of any incentive a doctor would have to give it anything less than his/her best effort. For a police officer, there are so many more factors involved.

Re:Ambulance chasers are going wild now! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#44085789)

There have been cameras in ORs recording whats going on in any hospital that isn't in the middle of Kenya for years.

This is in no way anything new.

As I see it. (0)

slick7 (1703596) | about 10 months ago | (#44082005)

This is wrong in so many ways. Right to privacy and violation of the HIPPA laws comes to mind.

Re:As I see it. (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about 10 months ago | (#44082437)

The surgeon/hospital would've gotten permission from the patient first -- recording & sharing OR videos has been going on for decades in university teaching hospitals, and from experience, those places are *very* careful to ask permission for just about anything educational.

Re:As I see it. (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 9 months ago | (#44083981)

The surgeon/hospital would've gotten permission from the patient first -- recording & sharing OR videos has been going on for decades in university teaching hospitals, and from experience, those places are *very* careful to ask permission for just about anything educational.

You are correct on that, however the only papers I ever signed occurred just before they wheeled me into the OR, jacked up on whatever they give you before wheeling you into the OR. Believe me when I say reading and having cogent thoughts and asking questions about what I signed were not at the top of my todo list.

Re:As I see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086851)

Then you should ask them to provide you with copies far before your surgery, or have a legal representative there to review the documents on your behalf.

"Is it okay if we video the procedure for instructional purposes?" isn't really a brain buster.

hmmm (1, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 10 months ago | (#44082021)

If he did that to me, he'd need surgery after I tore him a new ass and then sued him until he was homeless in a ditch. Other than that, great use of technology.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082695)

+1. Anyone using Google Glasses for medical procedures without the patient's consent deserves to have the shit beat out of them.

Cookbooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082511)

In the Google library you'll find a volume entitled "To serve man ..." (cf Damon Knight).

mod Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44082817)

is 3ying anD its

Obviously (1)

12WTF$ (979066) | about 9 months ago | (#44083673)

The latest medical procedure is a Glasstrostomy.
It is a means for removing a Google Glass device
from a wearer of Google Glass ("a Glasshole")
with a swift blow upside the head.

Once again the potential isn't realised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44087713)

So here we have this head mounted display with voice recognition, tracking, and the ability to connect to a more powerful device to do it's heavy lifting, and we're still only using it as a fucking camera strapped to someone's head. This device is destined to fail, and if not fail, go the way of the jawbone bluetooth handsfree device. Everyone who sees you wearing one will think you're a douche.

What wasn't reported. (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 10 months ago | (#44092023)

Surgeon was probably searching Google on how to actually do the procedure as well. "Google...how to I do a Gastrostomy".

Yes, its a brave, brave new world we are entering when surgeon's need always-on Internet to perform surgeries and respond to tweets while they have their hands in your guts.

big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44094601)

For every single use of Google Glass for stuff like this, there will be a thousand other cases of someone using it to create POV porn, and a million other of some guy perving on hot women.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...