Talk:Remote physiological monitoring

Merge Proposal
The idea of physiological monitoring is the part of the grand idea, Remote Patient Monitoring. Remote Patient Monitoring covers Remote physiological monitoring, biotelemetry, and other social aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1002a5 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - yes this does form part of patient monitoring, however it is also extensively used for monitoring people who are not patients - e.g. astronauts, military personnel etc. it is part of that in the same way that a leg is part of a horse - it is part of a great many other things also. Innovationbrain (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose- Although Remote Patient Monitoring and Remote Physiological Monitoring have similar underlying processes, remote patient monitoring and remote physiological monitoring serve different purposes. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of standardization in nomenclature and definition of the terms, which leads to confusion.(Df1002 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Oppose - I agree with first opposer. But I think it hinges on the definition of "Physiology" and the scope of application. A heart monitor is a physiological monitor. But would a device that describes a person's gait, or patterns of activity be a physiological monitor? If that information was used to identify a person, or at least to distinguish them from another person, would that still be physiological monitoring? Is a pedometer a physiological monitoring device? Lamming (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - If you think that "Remote physiological monitoring" is different from "Remote patient monitoring", please add a sentence or two to this article mentioning what exactly the difference is. What are the "different purposes" mentioned above? Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Want More!!!
This seems like a stellar article topic, and I'd love to learn more about it. Added onesource and wikify tags in hopes that some dear, experienced wikipedian will come along and save it. I really don't think it's a candidate for deletion, as it is an emergent technology. I'd love to read more, but the user that wrote most of it isn't around anymore. Vedek Wren (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a cool article, a better editor woudl help, but very relevant to issues in our society now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.190.167 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This reads like a series of adverts and may detract from the value of wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.64.133.227 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Technology section
I removed the technology section in toto because it was doing more harm than good. It was basically a container for product-placement advertisements. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)