FoxNews ran a story today entitled, “Bluetooth Technology Allows Heart Monitors to Contact Hospitals Automatically.”

A study published Tuesday in Inderscience’s International Journal of Electronic Healthcare found a wearable “Telemedicine” Bluetooth heart device is able to send text messages to local hospitals when the heart shows signs of extreme distress.

The Bluetooth heart monitor regularly records a patient’s electrocardiogram (EKG), and sends levels to the patient’s cell phone, but also checks the signals for signs of sudden cardiac failure, and if a problem is detected, alerts the nearest medical center with a text message.

Thulasi Bai, a professor at the Sathyabama University in Tamil Nadu, India, told FOXNews.com the Bluetooth monitor gives patients at risk for heart failure a chance for more mobile lifestyles.

“Before, the doctor has to determine the information, but with this, everything is truly automatic and immediate care can be given to the patient,” said Bai, who began testing the model two months ago along with her senior professor S.K. Srivatsa.

The difference between this wearable heart monitor and other previously developed ones is that this device not only transmits information to the doctor through Bluetooth, a wireless network used to transfer information, but it is also designed to read the EKG levels carefully enough to know if the heart is actually suffering an attack before sending the message, Bai said.

While the story focuses on the positives of preventing deaths, Dr Wes points out, that there will be consequences:

the implications of such technology are not trivial. Would resources exist to respond to all the messages received? What would the battery drain be on such a cell phone device for such monitoring? How does one confirm that the device is not sending a false signal? What are the steps after a message is received – call the patient or do we just send the ambulance to reduce the “door-to-balloon” time? Who will man the telephone 24/7? How will they be paid? Are funds best allocated for damage control like this, or prevention of the heart attack in the first place?

Related to these concerns, and perhaps among them, would be the medmal question of liability.  Would phone operators and other people involved be regularly sued every time a person is not saved from death?  Would the decisions made by corporations be motivated more by “defensive medicine” concerns rather than by what makes the most sense?  Or, alternatively, will the technology not be implemented at all for anyone due to fears of medical malpractice litigation?

All these questions may seem far away, but, like other technological developments, it could possibly happen overnight. Even if the technology is not going to be implemented soon, the concerns expressed by Dr. Wes mirror the concerns doctors have about technological change that is going on now–such as medical records.