Iain L M Hotchkies wrote:
>
> Graham Ross typed:
>
> [snip pacemaker/Y2K]
>
> > 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.
>
> There you have it, in two lines.
> The reason why medics and lawyers will rarely see eye to eye.
> Just imagine running a 12-patient surgery, using the above
> two lines as the basis for practising medicine.
> "I know you've only come in for a flu jab, Mrs Tremble, but
> I cannot say that you certainly do not have a malignant
> ovarian cyst. Just hop up on the couch while I do a quick
> pelvic ultrasound."
>
Maybe I lobbed that one up a bit too invitingly, but the point is that
there are good reasons to believe that there may be a problem, unlike
with Mrs Tremble's ovaries, and for what little it takes to investigate,
it should be done, particularly in view of the consequences.
In any case, investigating medical devices is not a matter of debate.
They have to be looked at if they involve embedded chips from a certain
date. That agenda has been developed without a lawyer in site. Whether
they will be investigated in time and how patients are to be dealt with
are the issues. I wait to see if we get more info from the cardiologist.
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|