Killer Death Rays Present Pacemaker Risk! (Or Not?)
I just found this piece of scaremongering prudent advice in the safety instruction manual of my new Toshiba laptop:
Turn Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Wireless WAN Functionalities off for Cardiac Pacemakers Turn Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Wireless WAN Functionalities off when near a person who may have a cardiac pacemaker implant or other medical electric device. Radio waves may affect pacemaker or medical device operation, possibly resulting in serious injury. Follow the instruction of your medical device when using any Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or Wireless WAN Functionality.
With almost every laptop, phone and cafe now omitting these death rays, according to Toshiba the world has become a risky place for pacemaker carriers. In fact, what with Starbucks rolling out Wi-Fi to all its branches, and my mobile's ability to trace Bluetooth devices just about anywhere, it is surprising we don't see the invisible rays striking on every high-street. Either that, or pacemaker users are shunning coffee shops, inhabitable areas, the City of London and the entire rim of the US West Coast, more or less.
But hang on. They're not. So what's the truth here?
The University of Oklahoma researched wireless phones and says: "There is nothing in the comprehensive test data to suggest that a pacemaker wearer is at risk from bystanders using wireless phones. Research confirms that most pacemakers are immune to interference, so elimination of interactions is technically and economically feasible today. Improved pacemaker immunity will benefit pacemaker patients." (source)
Pacemaker makers manufacturers clearly have to include all the usual disclaimers in their manuals, so they aren't necessarily your best source of answers.
And the British Heart Foundation says here:
Mobile phones - Mobile phones can affect some pacemakers if they are held close to the chest. It is therefore best not to carry a mobile phone in a breast pocket. Providing you hold your mobile phone on the opposite side to the pacemaker, at a distance of 15 to 20 centimetres (about 6 to 8 inches), it is unlikely to affect you. The same guidelines apply to portable phones used in the home. If in doubt, ask at your local pacemaker clinic.
MP3 players and palm/pocket PCs - Personal electronic equipment such as iPods and other brands of disk-based or solid state MP3 players and palm/pocket PCs can be used with negligible risk, providing they are not placed directly over the pacemaker. Keeping at least 15 centimetres (6 inches) between the device and your pacemaker avoids the effects of interference.
Wireless LANs used for PC connection -These should not cause interference with pacemakers, but as a precaution it is advisable to keep at least 15 to 20 centimetres (about 6 to 8 inches) between the LAN and your pacemaker.
Interestingly, Indian scientists are actually working on networking pacemakers into Bluetooth mobiles for the devices to be able to alert the hospital automatically if the patient is experiencing cardiac difficulty - so clearly the ominous rays are not all evil.
Then again, if you do want something to panic yourself about (not really, just a little), then the Chicago Tribune suggests you be concerned that your pacemaker may be hacked.
IwantGreatCare.org – “rate your doctor” – will it go up in flames of libel?
IwantGreatCare.org was launched in the UK as a service allowing patients to rate their doctors online. Patients can rate doctors out of 100 on "trust", "listening" and recommended categories, and then leave comments about the doctors that they have rated.
Every time I consult to website owners about user generated content, one of the first points I assess risk on is libel. Some of the key questions are:
-
a. How risky is the subject matter and how likely is it to land you in court for libel.
-
b. What sort of mechanisms do you have to remove libel promptly (and how prompt is 'promptly').
-
c. What sort of defences do you have in law if you are taken to court.
When the subject matter is people in a service profession, especially as personal as healthcare, libel is all but inevitable. Emotions tend to run high, and commentary becomes heated and very personal.
My experience also shows that people who are happy with a service are much less likely to comment on it online compared to those who are aggrieved or unhappy. Although some patients might go online to defend their GP, it is those with a grudge or misgiving who will carry the site, and it is often bad reviews that get the most focus.
To complicate things further, the kind of anonymity offered by IwantGreatCare.org produces a mistrust effect. When you see a good review, you wonder if it is real or produced by allies (or the practitioner themselves) to defend a reputation. When a bad review appears, it could well be a disgruntled colleague, not just a patient.
The risk is higher in the case of IwantGreatCare.org, because not only does it allow you to rate your doctor numerically, but it also lets you leave a comment. This is where patients and upset relatives will vent, like the example I found on the site for a certain doctor (whom I shall not name): "I went to see the doctor on behalf of my mother who is schizophrenic. He refused to listen to the issues i needed to discuss and was very very patronising and arrogant. I am not stupid - i have a doctorate in science and have published in many scientific journals - yet i was not listened to and the arrogance of Dr (Name) was unbelievable. He actually left me in tears as I left the surgery. I would recommend that anyone needing healthcare in (Place name) avoid him at all costs." If it were just numbers, perhaps it would have made it a little easier to defend in a libel case, but words to this effect cannot be taken back easily.
Then there is the question of prompt removal of libel, and how effective it is. I suspect that someone advised IwantGreatCare.org that they have a defence in law because they are not a publisher, as long as they remove content reported to them promptly. This may be the case when you run an online forum or community, but based on conversations with some of the most experienced libel lawyers in the country, I am not convinced that this argument would protect IwantGreatCare.org in court. The facts of the matter are:
- The site invites very specific content - the rating of doctors. It doesn't open a wide avenue of discussions, it isn't a general debate about doctors - it is inviting praise or criticism. A judge may well see this as implying responsibility for the content.
- a site run by "a small team", as IwantGreatCare.org describes itself, does not have the resource for immediate removal of reported content. Again, they may have been advised that "a reasonable time" for removal of content is not defined in law and that some legal experts suggest 72 hours, but in fact, and bearing in mind the point above about the kind of content invited, by the time a piece of content is removed, it may be too late to completely eradicate it from the Internet. The comment about Dr X that I quoted above has since been removed from the site, but still lives in Google's cache. If it is quoted by other sites and related to IwantGreatCare.org, then it will have left the control of the site, and the extent of the libel will have increased significantly. Even if removed, the originator would still be where it started, and I doubt if best efforts would defend the site from responsibility.
The IwantGreatCare.org is still in beta, and is already creating a storm of outrage within the medical profession. If it actually makes it to a full launch and gains some traction, I would not be surprised if it had to defend a libel case within its first 18 months.
To subscribe to the That Danny! blog click here.
Other stories:
Polar F6 Heart Rate Monitor Review
'Reviewing a heart rate monitor?' You say, as you tut tut mercilessly. Nothing better to do?
Well hear this, ye! I'm getting fit, and I need all the help I can get, so: new trainers (two pairs, one in striking yellow the other for more subtle days), new gym membership (6 months: a walk on the wild side), new eating habits (haven’t touched meat in three weeks!) and this polar F6 whatsit - a gadget that captures your heart rate while exercising and calculates calories, time, and your own personal best cardio zone, all tailored to your own circumstances.
So what is it:
- A wristwatch (which is the receiver unit and displays the information in real time).
- A transmitter that is tightened around your chest with a strap that contains electrodes, and sends your heart rate to the watch on your wrist.
And here are my thoughts about this gadget, three weeks into using it:
- The basics are excellent: I know exactly how long I've exercised, how many calories I've expended and how long I've spent in my cardio zone.
- I can upload this information to the Polar fitness website where it stores it as a fitness diary, and shows me how much I've done, and how much I've improved.
- It uses a quaint mechanism for uploading information from the watch unit to the Net. Like the old Sinclair Spectrum, it produces a series of screeches and beeps that you deliver to your computer via any microphone ("SonicLink"). Sweet.
- It's fairly easy to use.
sponsorship (if you like my site, support it by checking them out):
I only found two negatives, though they shouldn't put you off, if you got here from the wider Internet, and are considering buying an F6:
1. The Polar Fitness website (where you track your results) is good, but not great. Usability could be better, and the information isn't always displayed in the most effective way, for example, even though you can update your weight, and the graph is supposed to allow you to chart your weight loss, I'm still not sure if that functionality exists and if it works at all.
2. I know male fitness-type-people should all have huge chests and abs, but I don't... and the transmitter strap is a bit too big for me, even when I adjust it to its minimum length So either I'll have to grow that muscle really quickly, or I might just have to buy a lady version soon.
But the two complaints above are small compared to the ultimate benefits of the F6. It keeps me focused and stops me from cheating myself with the old "Oh, I did some extra strides last time, I'll skip 20 minutes today". I know exactly how much I've exercised, and this has been great for my general fitness regime (and the amazing loss of 5 kilos in only three weeks).
Obviously gadgets in themselves don't get you fit, and unfortunately you still have to follow the hard slog and eat well, but I agree that every little helps, and the F6 certainly does just that.
For Latest prices on Amazon check here
