Backboards: 
Posts: 159
In response to "You believe 100% of those deaths were non-preventable?" by Will Hunting

No. As said below, it just doesn't provide a sound number for comparison is all. As far as your IM...

That's where you and I will have to disagree. I don't subscribe to the "If it saves just one life, it must be worth it," school of thought. That's how we end up with a lot of nuisance changes that doesn't always make a lot of sense when compared to the risk.

(Think third base coaches wearing helmets now as a good kneejerk reaction to a fluke accident.)


Responses:
Post a message   top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.