Peter,

The difference is in our approach.

Your approaching it as an engineer and pointing out that its possible and can lead to advances (I agree as an engineer).

I'm approaching it as a businessman and saying, "its too easy to get sued and lose all doing that AND there are many less risky alternative products to make and KEEP money instead."

I choose the latter as a businessman.

I leave it to others to make the heart-monitoring devices that when a bug occurs, kills a patient. I have no doubt that event will focus attention to correct the code and improve the product... but in the USA, you'd be so effectively sued by the family of the deceased that you'd have no company left.

I call it "Thrill-Seeker Engineering" when someone designs in the high-litigation realm. You won't find me there... I'm in it for the money. :)

-Jay C. Box

PS: Another example of Thrill-Seeker Engineering that doesn't deal with mortality is designing order entry terminals for traders on the stock exchanges. If your product is used to transfer huge sums of money, that money is the measure of litigation punishment sought when a device fails. Better to let others fall victim to providing them product. :)