Lan Barnes wrote:
The simplest cost-benefit analysis on a death in the field would show you how silly your position is.
Given our lawyer happy society, the companies have done exactly what their cost-benefit leads them to. If it can't be 100%, it doesn't ship. I don't argue that.
My argument is that we need to have a larger discussion about the fact that *not* creating certain devices *also* has a societal cost.
One problem is that sins of commission (device fails -> someone dies) have a much larger emotional impact that sins of omission (no device -> thousands of people who could be saved die).
However, nobody wants to discuss that because it's ethically troublesome. Thus, our government stocks anthrax treatments which are unlikely to save anybody rather than buying flu vaccinations for every citizen, an action which would save people every year.
Quality-of-life procedures like Lasik are going to bring this discussion to the fore. There are long term problems that are caused by things like Lasik that are either going to get discussed or are going to wind up in court.
And court is a terrible place to have that discussion. See silicone breast implants, for example.
-a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
