Artificial intelligence (AI) is on everyone’s lips. Arouse as many doses of admiration as concern. Also in the world of healthcare, although it may seem strange. This was made clear yesterday by Dr. ValentÃn Fuster – cardiologist, general director of the Carlos III National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC) and the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York – in a new edition of Foros de Vanguardia held at the MGS auditorium. He was hopeful that the young doctors who are now beginning their careers will find the formula so that the freedom of the professional “is preserved” in the face of this new reality.
To questions from journalists Josep Corbella (La Vanguardia) and Laia Colomé (RAC1), -also from Ramon Rovira, orchestra director of the act-, Fuster was convinced that AI “will partly replace the doctor”, although he understands that some rules will end up being established in order to preserve the figure of the professional. He evidenced his concern to know “where some of the scientific data” that is circulating comes from and that it could be the result of this intelligence, some of which could be, he pointed out, false.
In this sense, he affirmed that society is experiencing “a difficult moment” with the devaluation of some values, “such as ethics”, and that for this reason he tries to transfer the young doctors who are now beginning their careers, with whom he lives every week so much at the CNIC and at Mount Sinai (he makes a weekly trip from New York to Madrid), the need to “talk to the patient again” in a world that is increasingly technological.
“The good habit of talking to the sick is being lost,” he said, when doing so, he maintained, “is essential.” “Half of what the patient asks has to do with an emotional aspect. It is unavoidable that the doctor has contact with the patient againâ€.
He affirmed that to be a good doctor it is essential to have three attributes: being resilient, knowing oneself well and giving oneself to society. He explained that when he observes these qualities in a future doctor “it is worth working on him” to help him grow.
Of the three, the one that is non-negotiable for him is “giving himself to societyâ€. He understands progress as the use of technology, science and methodology to make a better society. And he tries to instill it in the young.
“Without wishing to appear arrogant,” he stated, he asserted that it is what he has always tried to do throughout his career, also now, at 80 years of age. It is what motivates him, she assured, to the point that he maintained that the moments in which he has experienced the most happiness he has lived when he has given himself to others.
Certainly, the concept of motivation was very present in a large part of his interventions. So much so that he defended that “it is a health reason.” He is so motivated, he related, that every day at five in the morning he stands at Mount Sinai to start his journey. “It’s a very interesting culture that you see in a hospital at that time.” He recounted that at that moment in the morning, when he has not even started to get up for the day, he meets in the center with the security and cleaning personnel from whom he affirmed that he has learned “a lot.”
In a fast-paced society like ours, he opted for “stopping the clock, as promoted by the writer Josep Pla”. “We have to think, meditate,” he advised. “You have to be less reactive and more proactive.” And that, he said, is what he tries to do every day from 5 a.m. to 5:15 a.m., just as he arrives at his office at the New York hospital. “I do absolutely nothing. I think about what I am going to do during the dayâ€. He encouraged everyone present to take “15 minutes a day to do nothing.” “Don’t call me from 5 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. because I won’t answer you,” he snapped ironically at Ramon Rovira, host of the debate.
He also wanted to put the accent more on the prevention of diseases than on their knowledge. “Maintaining health will be the therapy of the future. We must prevent rather than cure.”
He maintained, in this sense, that “disease is known more than what health represents”, and argued that it is something that would have to change.
He also had time to talk about aspects so deeply rooted in our society such as alcohol or tobacco. He was not very favorable to prohibiting and very convinced of betting “for the freedom of each one.” In this sense, he asked the leader of the debate not to make him list all the activities that can carry a cardiovascular risk. “You already know, don’t ask me,” he snapped. In the end, he summarized, it all depends on the individual and what each one wants to do with their health.