I first heard about the ICD-10 when I was working at a small start-up, trying to develop an EMR for a string of dialysis clinics. It was always spoken of with a certain gravity, like the ominous visit from an aunt that nobody in the family likes, but feels obligated to see. Practical (read: business) people hate ICD-10. It’s giant and unwieldy. Doctors think it’ll be an excuse to bilk …
ICD-10 and the problem of interobserver variability
The New York Times recently published an article titled “A Life-Death Predictor Adds to a Cancer’s Strain” or, alternatively, “Genetic Test Changes Game in Cancer Prognosis.” The piece is interesting on several levels, but, to me, serves to highlight an increasingly common ethical conundrum: are physicians obligated to seek knowledge that is available but has no possible medical benefit?
Most of us are familiar with the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment …
Are doctors obligated to seek knowledge that has no medical benefit?
Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.
