Bureaucracy is apparently not pro-life

[brynndragon]

First, learn how an incredibly simple piece of organizational tech (so simple I hesitate to use the word "tech") means ICU staff spend less money to save more lives: The Checklist

Then, learn how the government decided we certainly can't let something this useful continue: A Lifesaving Checklist

Look, I'm a huge fan of ethics in research. I wish examining ethical issues with scientific research was a requirement for all science undergrads. But holding this research to the exact same standards as experimental drugs is a terrible mistake. We do need to be hella careful when dealing with the sickest of the sick, but you can take it too far and it looks like OHRP has. How many people will die of preventable infections before they figure out the standards this sort of research will require to satisfy Confucius' bastard child, bureaucracy?

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I was also thinking, "that bit about concern for doctors is suspicious." But I couldn't figure out how to make it coherent. Frankly, it's bullshit - we have ample evidence that doctors who own up to their mistakes are less likely to get sued, not more. Plus the particular mistake this checklist is about, line insertion infections, is not something that would otherwise be missed - if it occurs, you know it (as seen in the example of the limo driver in the first article). So I'm not sure how not having a checklist keeps that sort of thing hidden.

[australian-joe.livejournal.com]

Totally. If anything by admitting that was a factor in the decision I think they've made their legal situation worse.

I'm not sure I agree you'd need informed consent and patient trials to, say, be allowed to use a bandage that had been rolled up differently, though - and that seems to be what they're saying.