Dicussion Board by Wilhelmina Reynolds _ Student - WestCaryMS

Scotia Lentz Question 4 Response

2025-05-27 17:07:12 UTC

No, I wouldn't trust an AI to help diagnose or treat someone seriously ill. This is because AI lacks the empathy part of being a doctor, where it's important that technical medical skills are not the only factor when making critical decisions. For example: say someone elderly is in stage 4 cancer and there are 2 options: let them go, or continue treatment with the minimal possibility of recovery. An AI will probably choose the latter choice, as its job is to ensure survival and the continuation of treatment, however unlikely it is that it will work, is the closest option to this. However a human doctor would be best for this decision because they would likely choose the former option, to let them go; because further treatment will not improve the elderly person's quality of life. Therefore I think human doctors would be better than AI doctors solely for the fact that I think both factual and emotional intelligence are required for the medical field.

Alexa Crawford

2025-05-27 17:24:58 UTC

What that situation really showed to me was how Caroline's body was already at a pretty invasive stage when they found the cancer. The doctors observed and found that something was wrong, but AI helped with that further and identified that this has already taken over. Molly on the other hand was much easier for AI to analyze because of how kids make much more drastic and simplistic movements, which when observed by a machine such as this is much easier for it to comprehend.

This significant contrast reveals the gaps within the interpretation skills the machine has, and also shows how even though AI can help, ultimately when it comes to more difficult cases doctors might be able to observe more on a deeper and more consistent level, as well as being the ultimate decision makers.

Alexa Crawford

2025-05-27 17:32:30 UTC

Having seen both sides of North Carolina (rural/non-rural), I can definitely attest that there is a significant decrease in healthcare the further you go into those rural areas. Because of this budgets and staff may be lower in quality, which makes having these AI machines just not a top priority.

As for the actual story it does not specifically state where the original hospital they went to was, but judging by the state it was in it seemed poorly funded. The Triangle has always been that beacon within North Carolina for innovation to me, and this story enhanced and built off of that thought greatly. It really just highlights how we should spread this innovative thought of healthcare equality throughout North Carolina, and ensure that all people are cared for when needed.

Alexa Crawford

2025-05-27 17:37:25 UTC

I think to a certain extent yes a machine can care for someone. There have been many machines designed and curated throughout our time to ensure that the person being treated is cared for and well to its standards. In relation to human emotional care, the machine probably could not comprehend that. To me when dealing with emotions during patient care it really is something only humans can relate to, especially since AI cannot feel emotions.

The actual story suggests however that this machine probably could never fully care for humans. This idea does mature throughout the text, for by the end the dad was way more open to having AI treat people because of how it saved Molly.

Alexa Crawford

2025-05-27 17:40:29 UTC

I would want the doctors to have full control over the machine and have them only use it as a backup. Whatever they can't see or fully comprehend is when I would be safe with AI usage. As for actual treatment I really think that's something only the human hands can do. This is because AI makes very exact decisions necessary for survival, but not logical all the time. I feel like it would make a really drastic movement and possibly accidentally hurt the patient.

Question # 3 Deborah Terzis

2025-05-28 01:01:40 UTC

I do not feel AI can truly care for a patient as a human Medical Doctor. AI lacks the observation and emotional intelligence of a human being. For example, the doctor observing the young girls, mild hand tremor, and repeated toy dropping would have been missed by AI. The young girl was not the patient at the time. However, the doctor had the medical observation that there was a neurological issue developing. He had the medical knowledge to order further testing to confirm MS and also develop a treatment plan early on to minimize her symptoms. AI only follows patterns and rhythms and is only a machine not a Human.

Caitlin Boyce

cmboyce2 — 2025-05-28 21:22:09 UTC

Question 3 response: I would say up to a certain point a machine can be capable of caring for someone, they could be programmed to function a certain way that is similar to natural human morality but I do feel as similar is as close as it can get. Humans are unpredictable emotions and how we act vary from each individual person and there is never anyway to replicate that same type of behavior exactly and with AI they are only programmed to understand things we program it to. And with the story I think that is demonstrated by how it may have been perceived as truly caring and that idea dies adapt throughout until the end but it still is uncertain.

Marvin Sawaya- #4

2025-05-28 23:54:55 UTC

I would not let AI take care of someone I loved who is seriously ill for a couple of reasons. First, you never know if the AI is providing you with accurate information on how to treat the illness. Who knows if it is just giving you nonsense instructions that are somehow making that person's illness worse? And also, what happens if the AI shuts off in the middle of the process, and you can't have access to the tasks it is telling you to do again? These are the most important parts, in my opinion, but honestly, I think that AI should not be used when treating someone's illness, as it is very dangerous and always contains false information, which is rarely easy for the average human to notice on the spot.

Jay Reynolds, Question 1 Response

2025-05-29 02:15:16 UTC

In showing that the AI couldn't save Caroline, an important contrast is demonstrated. Caroline's condition was too advanced for any intervention to reverse, highlighting that while AI is promising and potentially impactful in medicine, it isn't magical or miraculous. Caroline's case also underscores that AI cannot replace the human understanding of death, loss, or the nuanced decisions required in tragic, end-of-life circumstances.

By contrast, Molly's case reveals the practical, targeted utility of AI. It’s a more realistic and grounded application; one that aligns with what machine learning models do best: pattern recognition. The AI detected obscure, otherwise inscrutable patterns that escaped human notice. It didn’t save Molly’s life outright, but it significantly improved her quality of life and long-term prognosis. This supports the idea of AI as a diagnostic enhancer, serving as a powerful tool in a physician’s toolkit, not a substitute for human judgment.

The story uses this contrast to make a grounded, thoughtful point:
AI should neither be idolized nor feared; rather, it should be used wisely, as a tool that amplifies, but does not replace, human expertise.