While advocates see Telehealth as an essential fundamental change that will improve the way health care is delivered, others view Telehealth as a nice-to-have-tool or an intriguing array of high-tech gadgets, which may make us feel “cutting edge” but ultimately have little effect on the delivery of care. Some of its harshest critics see it as an expensive and time-consuming operation that is unlikely to enhance the existing health care system. While not a challenge for the average adolescent, there are clearly challenges in the transition to new or different communication modalities in the adult population. While we all watch television and often enjoy the various interactive programs as passive observers, when a group of professionals convene and are asked to communicate with a similar remote group using analogous television techniques, an interesting spectrum of avoidance and hesitant attitudes appears that frequently hinders successful encounter, regardless if it is a ContinuingMedical Education event, active consultation, or telesurgery. More passive, less interactive applications, such as electronic medical records, are understandably more acceptable, although we all share the frustrations, sometimes anger, that exist around their implementation and inefficiencies. Our profession is many times a solo venture encompassing long hours, either in the clinic or in the operating room. Unidirectional encounters, such as patient education or even e-prescriptions, are often more intuitively comfortable, while electronic interactive exchange tends to meet with more resistance, often reflected as skepticism.