It should though. If your going to write up about how over tech'n is wastefull, I would expect one or two lines about how about how experienced health care workers save more lives than fancy scans.
I shall drop out here.
I meant that his argument is irrelevant.
A few highlights about the discussions about technology in medicine:
We need to reduce doctors ordering unnecessary tests to cover their asses in case of future lawsuits.
Expensive technology ends up being used too broadly, where there is not evidence of it being cost effective or improving quality of life.
Expensive technology is used because a hospital has a particular piece of equipment rather than because there is evidence that is more effective than a cheaper treatment.
The way doctors are paid - by quantity rather than quality - encourages unnecessary procedures.
People perceive that high-tech is better and request the unnecessary, more expensive procedures (the article I linked mentions specifically mammograms vs. MRIs and ultrasounds).
Technology is a prestige issue for hospitals as much as a diagnostic tool - you don't want to be the kid on the block whose parents did not buy them an NES.