The more I look for indications of fear at work in society, the more stories I find of technologies and processes put in place to manage possible "just-in-case" scenarios.
To whit: There is a growing interest in RFID technology in North America, as the latest thing in ruthlessly efficient supply chain management. Walmart is going to be one of the largest users of RFID on the planet when they finish their own project later in the year.
While I have no issues with the idea of tagging pallets full of dish soap, baby sleepers and women's shoes, I do have an issue when they start tagging babies and women. And men and boys too, obviously.
This story in eWeek speaks about just such a possibility for the purposes of ensuring consistent error-free medical attention. The underlying message in the article is that the technology is worth it to ensure that you are treated properly and not subject to medical malpractice.
Huh? Excuse me if I fell asleep and missed something, but isn't the responsibility for ensuring appropriate medical attention when one is in the hospital on the shoulders of the hospital and its staff themselves?
The fear that is communicated in that story, via telling us that this is a good idea, is the fear of being ill-treated at the hands of the medical profession. It is the fear of not having control over our bodies and health. But it still seems fishy to me that they'd prefer we bar-code ourselves so they can scan us like so much merchandise rather than figure out a more efficient way of managing information about us without making us feel like dish soap on a pallet in a medical warehouse.
So, once again, the classic Stuart Hall question - who is being served by this message?
I may dream of wetware that will make my life better one day. This isn't it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment