Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy

By: Steph Cronin

Steph Cronin — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:06:37 +0000

Thank you all for your comments. They have certainly helped develop my understanding and spurred on some critical thinking that I hope to carry over into the assignment.
Firstly, Sian – great book recommendation! It is even written in a way that complements the way in which I think…or at least the way I think, that I think.
Kevin – your comments are very welcome and spot on. They are very really concerns that I have been grappling with when exploring this topic. Such concerns occur with increasing frequency as we encounter posthumanism powering into healthcare. However, in a similar fashion as the laser may be used to create utopia or dystopia (referenced in my block 1 posts re: Robert Winston ‘Bads Idea’s’) potential opportunities to improve patient care should not missed by fear of ‘what if’s’ but instead a beneficent approach need be adopted. One point to answer ‘what if the computer decides the patterns don’t match…tries to correct through (unneeded) defibrillations’ is that, this is already occurring. Though not a computer as some devices can malfunction or be set over/under sensitive thus delivering an inappropriate impulse. Many occasional occurrences are rarely catastrophic (sometimes a completely asymptomatic event). The wireless technology enables the physician to be aware of these ‘warnings’ and adjust the settings before a catastrophic event occurs. Perhaps the ‘fail-safe’ within my pedagogy is that the physician (as human) retains ultimate responsibility for the patients’ wellbeing and can choose to ‘revert’ to human interaction if deemed necessary…expediting a f2f meeting early than a routine appointment if the reprogramming is complex and high risk. Utilising the posthuman facilitates monitoring and potential treatment to be delivered over and above what is achievable by human means alone. You raised an interesting concern regarding hackability. This certainly could be catastrophic in terms of patient safety but also in terms of leaking confidential patient data that has an effect on a patient’s social, professional and financial wellbeing. The technical prowess required to address this is far beyond my capabilities. However, I do appreciate that this needs significant consideration and action to prevent such an event…perhaps regarded as a post-posthuman action.

By: Kevin Shawn HUDSON

Kevin Shawn HUDSON — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:30:46 +0000

Very interesting. I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a moment and ask about the fail-safes built into the system. If a physician can log in and “remotely alter the function of the device to increase functioning of the heart,” couldn’t they also do nefarious damage to it? Can the system be hacked?

Is it difficult to imagine the maintenance of all of the patients becoming a burden on the physician’s time, therefore the task is outsourced to a (perhaps) less educated technician who simply looks for patterns. Once this happens, why not use a computer program to do it, since computers are more efficient at monitoring patterns? But then, what if the computer decides your particular pattern doesn’t match, and therefore tries to correct it through (unneeded) defibrillations?

If the patient has less and less contact with the physician, and starts relying on the technology through an app, are we putting too much faith in the machine? Cost cutting aside, are you ready to turn over remote control of your heart to someone else, without structured support?

By: Grace Elliott

Grace Elliott — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:50:59 +0000

Interesting stuff Steph. It would be very reassuring for the person to know that their doctor is able to remotely monitor the device and make any alterations s(h)e sees fit. I know I’d find it comforting. Great idea about the apps and after-care treatment too. Do you think though that these technologies are accessible to all?

I think there are probably a lot of ‘cyborgs’ around – may be the word needs redefined.

I think my daughter would find your blog interesting so I’m going to post her the link. She’s training to be a consultant anaesthetist.

By: Jeremy Keith Knox

Jeremy Keith Knox — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:41:04 +0000

This is a fascinating technology Steph, and one that definitely questions the boundaries of the individual. It seems that, in allowing ‘the physician to monitor the patients and remotely alter the function of the device to increase functioning of the heart’, control of the body (previously allocated to the individuals brain stem?) is being ‘outsourced’ to a system that includes the device, and the frontal lobe of a brain in another human body…

Your example also seems to emphasise the informational aspects of posthumanism, where the body-as-information is integrated into the programme of education. I like how the ‘course’ information changes in response to the corporeal data…who says knowledge can be disembodied?

By: Siân Bayne

Siân Bayne — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:52:57 +0000

This is great stuff Steph, and I really like the way you are playing with the relationship between body, implant and device here – really clever. I think you would like Annemarie Mol’s work on technology and medicine and her actor-network theory influenced ways of viewing them. If you had time to get hold of ‘The body multiple: ontology in medical practice’ (2002) I think you would get something from it.

Great pedagogy anyway – thanks!

By: Austin Tate

Austin Tate — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:56:32 +0000

This sort of think makes me queasy, but I think you have a great idea about providing support resources and education to assist people in using such devices and handling the psychological aspects of being dependent on such a device.