3 ms·
It looks like this allows individual States to truly enable whatever-it-is within their own borders. Still, I don't like it: If a pharmacist wants to use a too
by Terr_ 2y ago
It looks like this allows individual States to truly enable whatever-it-is within their own borders.
Still, I don't like it: If a pharmacist wants to use a tool and they validate the result and take legal responsibility for it being accurate, that's different and fine.
But this looks more like enabling states to have robo-pharmacist, and then where's the legal responsibility and liability now?
- stubish 2y agoSurely the liability will lie with the insurance company, like with regular doctors in the US. And if there is too much malpractice, the state can revoke the license, like a regular doctor.
- Terr_ 2y ago> And if there is too much malpractice, the state can revoke the license, like a regular doctor. That particular safety-net is reportedly full of holes, at least in terms of protecting consumers in certain states. Ex: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/30/medical-board-license-discipline-failures-7-takeaways-investigation/2092321002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/30/medical-board...
- thfuran 2y agoI'd expect software that issues prescriptions to be a class II or class III medical device and that any or all of the manufacturer, the institution using it, and any human operator in the loop (if there is one) would be liable for errors, depending on the exact situation.