Re: civil penalty for medical violation

[OFFTOWY@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/2000 1:01:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:

<< I fail to understand how anyone can consider a simple, quick, and 
inexpensive leak test as "meaningless forms and repetitive training...", 
especially when this
 source will be applied to a patient's eye. >>

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say I characterized this or any event in 
that way.  Perhaps I should change subject lines if anyone is confused.

I do think there is room to reconsider the appropriate scope of the 
regulatory structure under which we all work, while still applying ourselves 
to ensuring compliance with the structure we have now.  The latter is our 
responsibility.  This does not excuse the actions of any particular bad actor 
in this business  - there are many, and overly-stringent regulations do not 
affect them; they affect only the honest folks.

I think there is a big difference between those elements that should be part 
of the program (decisions made on a facility- and hazard-specific basis) and 
those that should be part of a regulation.  Somewhere in the last 50 years we 
have lost that difference.  I think bad regulations make bad programs.  And I 
think most of us  silently go along with it, to the detriment of the safety 
of those we are charged to protect.

Lew LaGarde
offtowy@aol.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html