With so much technology available these days, it seems strange that of hospitals who responded to an annual survey by the Leapfrog Group, only 17 percent use a computerized prescription ordering system. A study done in two Australian hospitals tracked the error rates in prescriptions written by doctors before and after implementing a computerized ordering system. The errors dropped by 60 percent, according to the study. Although there are major benefits to the system, such as not having to read the chicken scratch writing of most doctors, some problems still exist. The system is relatively new and does not have all the errors worked out, but still helps tremendously. The software can give hints and warnings about how prescriptions may interact with each other or if the drug would cause an allergic reaction in the patient.
This article is claiming that using this software in hospitals is an advantage, as well as safer for patients whose prescriptions have been messed up before. The author cites a study (logos) done by researchers in Australia. Pathos is also appealed to when examples of drug mix ups or mistakes leading to death are cited. Some of the words used, such as 'suffering' and 'permanent damage,' evoke emotions of frustration and pain that give the argument emotional validity.