As I started the year, I took time to reflect on the high points of 2025. While those moments are in the past, at some point they were actually my future.

I came to realize that there were many moments in the past when I made big decisions, took risks, trusted my instinct and changed course. At those moments, I took an action that released an anchor and sailed forward into an unknown.  

To help myself and others contemplate these moments of inflection, I formulated the question: Do you want to be anchored in the past or connected to the future?

I would assume that most people — especially those trying to provide the best healthcare — would want to be connected to the future. That seems obvious, doesn’t it?

But is that how we act? For most people and industries, there are two words that come to play in this situation: risk and safety. For medical imaging, there is another word that needs consideration: patients.

For many industries, the balance of risk and safety is a primary consideration to determine the best business path and outcome. And when safety has the potential to be compromised, we may become more risk averse. We do the same with our investment portfolios. As I’ve gotten older, I have tended to increase the balance of investments toward more stable options.  

But let’s talk about healthcare. What if you had a life-changing antidote for a patient on an island, and you were the only one who could get to them soon enough to save their life? Would that change how you balance risk and safety?

Is this too hypothetical or abstract?

Consider the Iditarod, a 1,000-mile dog sled race from Willow, Alaska, to Nome, Alaska. Today it is a sporting event, but that wasn’t the case a few decades ago. In January of 1925, a group of mushers and dogs crossed Alaska with dog sleds. There are likely safer months to cross the state, and with clothing options at the time, this would have been a risky decision. Purely on the balance of risk and safety, this wouldn’t make sense. So, why did they do it?

There was an outbreak of diphtheria in Nome, and the entire town was at risk. The only chance to save them was delivering an antitoxin serum. The mushers could have remained anchored in Anchorage, but they thought of the patients and risked their lives to connect to the future — the future lives of the people in Nome. And they made it; they delivered the serum and saved the town.  

As we sit in the comfort of our homes and offices in 2026, the decisions we make might not seem as urgent or dramatic. However, the principles for the decision remain the same. We are a risk-averse industry. Our decisions must make sense financially. But what happens when an option is clearly better fiscally, yet is new and seems risky?

Now we have a dilemma. We can be safe and push the “easy button,” even when we know the new option is better. In other industries, this might be a sound choice. But that extra word in the balance of risk and safety keeps coming to mind: patients.

So, what now? Is it right to make the choice that was safe in the old days, or should you take a risk and connect yourself to something that looks like the future?

How many patients and families have benefited from the risk that Dr. DeBakey took when he performed the first heart transplant? That was clearly risky, but he thought of the patient, as should we.

How do we make that decision? I think you have to flip normal thinking.

Start with the question, “Which option is better for patients today, tomorrow, or even in five years?” The future is extremely important, because the decisions you make today will affect patients for years to come.

If you think thoroughly about what is best for patients, independent of safety and risk, then you have an answer to that question. Then and only then can you weigh the short-term internal evaluation and risk balancing. You can decide if what is better for patients in the future should be ignored for the balance of risk and safety.

This “thinking backwards” will add flavor to the risk/safety decision. If you have decided what is best for patients in the future, you have connected yourself to the future. As you picture that future, you will likely have to make a decision that releases an anchor in the past. You might even see the best choice for the future clearly enough to ask yourself this question:

I can see this is the best choice for the future, so why shouldn’t I be connected to it?

That is a big decision, and it’s happening every day. Some people make it passively by not looking into the future, and some actively because the past is known and secure. But connecting to the future, I believe, is what our patients want us to do.

There is some safety in being anchored, but it is also restrictive by definition. As I look at the new year, I am certain that it will be full of immense change in many ways. I am also convinced that I need to embrace that new future, connect myself to it (“strap in” and “step out,” so to speak) and get ready to take off.

Where I sit, I firmly believe I am connected to the future. I am passionate about changing the perspective of others, to help more people learn how to connect to the future and release their anchors from the safety of the past.