I don’t recall the exact moment I realized I was sliding towards obsolescence, but by that time it didn’t matter because I didn’t care.

I did my residency during the early days of ultrasound; images looked more like a Rorschach inkblot than pelvic organs or babies. We all believed radiologists made shit up when they read ultrasounds. Few things were more irritating that having one emphatically identify a non-existent tubal pregnancy, committing us and the patient to an unnecessary exploration.

We used one of the first TV cameras adapted for a laparoscope, a rather bulky attachment whose picture was as atrocious as it was fascinating. The attending physician watching the monitor while the residents tied a patient’s tubes laparoscopically said, “Maybe I DON’T want to see what you are doing.”

The hospital where I did my internship bought a Computerized Axial Tomography (CAT) scanner, a great advance over simple x-rays and a fortuitous event. One of the radiology interns volunteered for the initial scan and discovered he had a brain tumor. Word got around only after people began questioning the sudden onset of baldness.

Technology’s transition from medical advance to hospital marketing tool started in the 1990s. Physicians touted “minimally invasive surgery,” which some patients interpreted as “painless and risk-free.” Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) replaced CT scans and generated new revenue as outpatients sites opened. (One small town boasted five MRI machines.)

Administrators became enamored with robotic surgery in the early 2000s, buying a toy that cost $2 million and came with a $150,000 annual service contract. Initially acquired by large private and university healthcare systems, robots found their way into small community hospitals looking to attract more customers to augment declining revenues.

I’ve always been cautious; I was never the first to embrace that which was new and heaped with promise. My choices were often met with incredulity. “What? You DON’T treat warts and cervical dysplasia with a laser?” No, but thirty years ago I saw physicians willing to plunk down fifty grand for an office model, even though they had no idea how to use it. Those contraptions are likely catching dust in a closet, having been supplanted by the far simpler wire-loop cautery known as LEEP.

I never cared for doing surgery exclusively with a laparoscope. I could take out a tubal pregnancy through a small incision and be finished in the time it took to set up all the laparoscopy equipment. I didn’t get on the Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) bandwagon, having watched my colleagues turn a 45-minute procedure into a seven-hour ordeal. I learned “new” wasn’t necessarily “better” but was always much more expensive.

I preferred delivering babies to gynecologic surgery, and most of my subsequent jobs were for obstetric coverage. I stopped doing major gynecologic surgeries in 2007, relieved. Then earlier this year an office nurse said, “Any woman who has a big scar on her belly from an abdominal hysterectomy should sue her physician for malpractice.” I’d passed the point of no return and was on the way out.

I don’t mind being a dinosaur, partly due to the direction my profession has taken. We spend far more money than twenty years ago for very little tangible benefit. Younger physicians rely too much on lab tests and scans and too little on actually listening to and examining their patients. I don’t want to talk with a patient while typing notes into a laptop—the health care version of texting during dinner. And I don’t want to take ten minutes to generate a prescription from an electronic medical record (EMR) when I could do it with a pen in 30 seconds.

I’m looking forward to retirement and I’m happy to pass the baton onto a younger generation. My only regret is that I probably won’t be around in thirty years to witness the same realization cross their once-eager faces.