<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <id>http://www.cocomment.com/comments/bigbluemeanie</id>
    <title>coComments related to bigbluemeanie</title>
    <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/comments/bigbluemeanie"/>
    <rights>Copyright 2007 coComment.com</rights>
    <updated>2009-11-25T06:12:52.493+01:00</updated>
    <icon>http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif</icon>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=bigbluemeanie&amp;conv=435561&amp;comment_id=7619644</id>
        <title>Isn't this a case where the ri</title>
        <author>
            <name>bbm</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=bigbluemeanie&amp;conv=435561&amp;comment_id=7619644"/>
        <content>Isn't this a case where the risk is low, but the consequences of it happening are very high indeed. I thought that such cases justified such measures? One need only ask what the consequences would be for the hospital if it was sued and found guilty of failing to fulfil a duty of care to the baby and parents.

What one would need to do is measure the cost-effectiveness of these particular measures (RFID) versus 24 hour security, CCTV, etc.</content>
        <published>2007-01-28T14:22:00.926+01:00</published>
        <updated>2007-01-28T14:22:00.926+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
</feed>
