I may underestimate the power of machines, but I am quite confident that even if it's viable, the government will not willingly support machines that put pharmacists out of jobs. Pharmacy is a business. And when it, to some extent, revolves around money, people higher up WILL NOT be supporting this technology. Pharmacy schools make millions from tuition, and it's in their best interest to not let a 500k machine take over and put everyone out of a job. And for the economy's sake, whoever the president is in X years will gain no votes if he backs up a robot revolution that kills jobs. Just because something sounds and looks feasible, does not mean it should be made a reality without considering the economic consequences.
No one can force a business to hire workers it no longer needs. Remember what happened to the automative manufacturing industry? That was just a sign of things to come, in the future the question will be which jobs AREN'T vulnerable to machine/computer automation?
Can't see pharmacists being around much longer. Already most people think they just count pills and are over paid for what they do. Regardless of what you believe it's true that there's a lot of redundancy and that pharmacists aren't cheap. Hence the high incentive to replace them.
Random thought: Pharmacists are one of the first medical professionals to be able to spot potential epidemics that can spread. I doubt technology can detect that. Humans have insights that robots will never completely attain. What about if someone has jaundice, and they stumble into a pharmacy because it's the most accessible place? How will a robot detect liver failure? It's no use. If you argue that machines can even do that, jeez, maybe we should just let robots automatically perform physicals...we wouldn't have to pay MDs anymore for that! So easy, a robot can do it.
yeah but that's not what they're hired for, again as I said in first post, you have to think about this from the perspective of what's beneficial for the business
Machines can perhaps help out minimally, but they will not be putting pharmacists out of business anytime soon or later, whenever. Or ANY other medical professional for that matter. You look at ATMs. Whoa great technology, they should replace bank tellers right? Nope. They co-exist and compliment each other. Our reliance on technology is great, but when you start to try and make them do everything through intricate programming, you're overestimating their potential, and doing a disservice to the professionals out there who go through a ton of work to care for their patients. To assume a robot can replace them is insulting, to say the least. I am hoping to go into pharmacy. It's great money, for sure. But at the end of the day, it's less about making that six fig salary, than being available to patients and giving them our full attention, care, and empathy. Robots feed into the "treat-the-symptoms" approach to medical care. I'm going into pharmacy to push back against this old way of thinking, and trying for the holistic approach. That's where medicine is going, and not where robots will thrive.
pretty sure you haven't done any research on this topic
http://gawker.com/bank-tellers-ask-banks-please-dont-replace-us-with-vi-1457730227
http://www.businessinsider.com/chec...t-are-on-track-to-replace-bank-tellers-2012-5
http://business.time.com/2012/05/17/will-new-atms-replace-bank-tellers/
good example though of how it happens; gradual process
the important thing to realize is it's not a matter of IF but WHEN
