>On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:56:52 +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> I was a guest yesterday of Robin Guenier, of Taskforce 2000, and the UK's
>> main Y2K guru,
>>

>i.e. Y2K Conman.

Oh c'mon. Is this a 5 minute wind-up or the full half hour? Well here goes...

>> If it is a
>> device that fails, such as a pacemaker, you are exposed if you fail from
>> now to investigate the issue and, at least, warn patients that the device
>> may fail. Hiding behind "suppliers reassurances" is to fail your patients. 
>What a load of absolute bollocks. 
>Once again the only people who will win is f##### solicitors and 
>lawyers. Arguing over who is responsible:-(

I guess its the full half-hour.

Would you like to re-read what I said. I am talking about steps you can take
to avoid tragedies happening and, thereby, avoid lawyers getting paid for
arguing over who is responsible for tragedies that have already happened.

>What about the patients? 
>Don't they have brains? Let us apply a recent legal adjustment - if a 
>patient has some 'IT' equipment in-situ, and with all the hysteria 
>whipped up in the media about Y2K, isn't it reasonable to assume that 
>said patient (or relatives if patient non-compus-mentous) should try 
>and find out themselves if Y2K will affect them???

Possibly not if they read everything, as you do, as "hysteria" and their GP
tells them it is all a load of bollocks.

>BTW I have been assured by a local cardiologist that pacemakers 
>should not be affected by Y2K

I quite agree with him. Nor, for that matter, should any piece of equipment,
but much may well if the NHS does not get its act together.

Would you like to share with us the name of the cardiologist so we can check
the source of any reassurance and reasons. This may well put the pacemaker
issue to bed. They need to hear from him at the US Congress Committee that
is investigating. Also he should provide that information to the MDA who
have yet to advise on the issue. 

Let's get one thing right. I have put up pacemakers as a sensitve example of
possibly the worst and quickest "life or death" situation that could
result. I am not saying they will fail or they are likely to fail, just
that no-one has yet established they will certainly not fail. They do have
a chip that counts and that means it needs to be investigated. I believe
no-one in IT could disagree with that statement. It may well be that in the
near future that it can be proven that they will not fail. I hope so. But
until then, there must come a stage, later than now, of course, where your
duty of care to your patients requires you to do more than just rant and
scoff. 
 

Graham Ross
Solicitor
Ross & Co
Liverpool, UK
+44 (0)151 284 8585
+44 (0)151 236 6035-fax
ALeRT:-http://www.alertuk.com
Y2K-LAW:-http://www.y2kalert.com




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%