The da Vinci Controversy: Technological Imperative, Surgeons

Abstract

The advent of robotic surgery has elicited a heated debate in Korea. Proponents praise its technical superiority and potential clinical benefits for patients whereas critics decry the high cost and exaggerated effects. In the meanwhile, much of the current discussion of robotic surgery has revolved around its clinical efficacy and safety without considering deeper and more profound social and institutional implications of the technology. It is pivotal to explore the issues related to robotic surgery in a diverse array of settings because accepting a new technology and making a policy decision are both a heterogeneous social process. In this regard, this thesis examines how technological imperative manifests itself in our everyday language of medicine and how it inspires the ongoing da Vinci controversy in Korea. More specifically, it explores how technological imperative prevails in a commonly used term “robotic surgery” and the ambiguity of the term obfuscates an operating agent of da Vinci surgery. This, in turn, demonstrates the hidden interests of different social actors who exploit and interpret the word to fit their desired goals. Ultimately, the thesis argues that the current da Vinci controversy is not just about probing the validity of scientific and clinical evidence but also a struggle to provide legitimacy for one’s action.