Virtual medicine is taking a leap further. Not only can you chat with a medical specialist half-way around the globe, you can now video chat with your doctor. National Monitor reports that there is growing concern for this 'tele-medicine". No more visits to the doctor's clinic. You can just Skype or use Face Time.
This modern way of doing medicine is advantageous when a patient is too sick to bring himself to the hospital, or has no way of bringing himself to the hospital. It also eradicates having to wait in the hallway. It eliminates or lessens anxiety that is programmed into the term 'doctor's appointment'. It is cheaper and is more convenient. The doctor bills based on the quick screen chat.
However, governing bodies are getting concerned. While it may save time and money on everyone concerned, it may, however, in the long run, cost more time and money if the case is misdiagnosed. Experts say there is nothing more reliable than a hands-on approach. With this new trend, they expect the cases of medical malpractice to rise.
There is much controversy arising from virtual medicine. There are hundreds of websites offering medical services, where a patient can chat online with a doctor. There are options if one prefers just a doctor, or a specialist in a specific field, or a medical board composed of at least 4 doctors. The options on payment also vary: Visa, MasterCard, PayPal or American Express. Some websites even offer money back guarantees. While these websites post supposed clients who are happy, there are also some who were dubious.
In 2013, the issue on virtual medicine was the up rise of negative reviews about doctors made online. The premise: hungry people needed to know if the sushi was good in a specific restaurant. Therefore, sick people also had a right to know - through reviews - if a specific doctor was good. There have been cases where a doctor sued a family of a former patient, and he loses in court. In one particular case, the judge threw out the case because the comments made, negative as they were, were actually true. In another, the judge said the party posting the negative reviews was merely exercising free speech.
