I don't think that skiing accidents are a good analogy here. It's more like a resort refusing to pay to treat people injured because one of their ski-lifts collapsed.
But do we expect a resort to pay for that? I'd expect (assuming this happened at Aviemore rather than Davos) the person to be taken to the nearest NHS hospital and treated there. After that, there may or may not be a case for prosecuting and/or suing the ski-lift operator, depending on whether they were at fault. Isn't that what happens in practice?
It is complicated though and without better data, it's difficult to say whether there really is any danger from the implants at all. This could just be a hyped up panic.
Indeed - and as I said at the top of the entry, I don't feel competent to comment on that aspect. That's a question of weighing up the likely risks, the potential damage caused by ruptures, the risks of the removal procedure, etc., none of which I'm in a position to assess.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 03:17 pm (UTC)But do we expect a resort to pay for that? I'd expect (assuming this happened at Aviemore rather than Davos) the person to be taken to the nearest NHS hospital and treated there. After that, there may or may not be a case for prosecuting and/or suing the ski-lift operator, depending on whether they were at fault. Isn't that what happens in practice?
It is complicated though and without better data, it's difficult to say whether there really is any danger from the implants at all. This could just be a hyped up panic.
Indeed - and as I said at the top of the entry, I don't feel competent to comment on that aspect. That's a question of weighing up the likely risks, the potential damage caused by ruptures, the risks of the removal procedure, etc., none of which I'm in a position to assess.