IB1 - Beliefs of Engineers and Medical Professionals in Healthcare Decisions

Stakeholders


- Research Scientists

Cooperation with engineers and medical scientists would preferably allow use-inspired research to happen, not based on issues of expense or limits to research. On the other hand, there also exists the possibility of more streamlined resources and research based on government/firm assignments.. Good thing or bad thing? Somewhere in between.

- Medical Scientists

Direct cooperation with the belief systems of engineers would generally be a good thing towards the expense and focus side of research with the continued use of contraints and parameters rather than "accidental" discoveries - supposedly.


- Electrical Engineers

Freedom to work directly with medical professionals would eliminate the limits that these engineers run into as they attempt to create medical devices. However, due to the greater incentive of this, there exists the issue of grant money in terms of the directive that the cooperation would entail, as well as the occupational language barrier.


- Biomedical Engineers
Bioengineers benefit the most in terms of consolidating systems of belief, especially in healthcare. The critical error in the cooperation between the two parties is which devices are most immediately effective. Generally speaking, bioengineers already work directly with hospitals, and therefore medical doctors, however in a way more or less counterproductive (Explaining, fixing, manufacturing machinery is great and all, but there still exists the mechanical and disciplinary barriers!).



- Surgeons
Benefit from knowing exactly what the machinery does, and why it does it. In terms of an average engineer's belief toolbox, entrepreneurship and accessibility are paramount and therefore absolutely necessary. This holds true for a surgeon, but each and every time they operate on a patient, they're (literally) cutting into new territory. From MRI to CT down to every new technology, in an issue of bringing the two systems of belief closer together or making amends such that they better cooperate, a more common need would have to arise between the two factions.

- Family Practitioners
Knowing what's being implanted inside a patient is a great way to tie together patient relations - as such, yes, engineers are a great pathway. Even then, directly working in medicine for an engineer of any type could reduce misdiagnoses in the part of this party. They just gain reliability.



- Patients
Most engineers go through the FDA before their machinery gets out (see below!), and a major problem in the medical industry would have to be "necessary" implants gone awry. Patients benefit from a union (or swapping of ideas) by further knowing the risks involved with the metal being stuffed into them for all the right reasons, instead of finding out further down the line that the material within it (or, similarly, the drugs administered) is causing some awful disease.

- Politicians
Less regulatory watch necessary.

- Lawyers
Everything is in plain sight. Not only is it difficult to argue against an alibi where everyone has the same goal in mind, but it's probably easier to prosecute them that way, too.

- Patent Offices
Loss of patents due to more streamlined ideas...or vice-versa, a scenario in which there comes a burst of new patnets with the aid of all new visas to create new tech.

- Regulatory Officials (FDA/EPA)
Use-inspired in the name of the game here: i.e., making things less for the sake of making things (and income) and making them so that they actually do the job of helping the audience it's made for. The consolidation of a medical doctor and engineers' practices generally means, for these regulatory companies, that all of the machinery/techniques/etc. that comes toward them is generally beneficial and tested to the tooth. The FDA and the EPA benefit from knowing that from an engineer's point of view, it's neither depleting ozone or disintegrating someone's innards.

- Foreign Administration
The union of beliefs could possibly also result in the union of ideas. In theory, at least.

And, of course, at a dinner party these groups would be tooth and nail. It's not necessarily that these groups disagree with each other, more or less, they would just much rather commit to the singular goal in a much different way. To some, the goal of healthcare reigns under the Hippocratic oath (Most doctors/works in health care), while for engineers, perhaps, it's more venture based. Politicians would have their day attempting to not fend off the loss of expense in terms of where grant money goes and why...but surely, and most hopefully, the general consensus is for the people.