You're viewing a single thread.
In my ethics course during the phd program, I was told this was actually a good thing. Their example was pharma companies know how to use their drugs better so they get better results, more true results. If that was true, it's unfortunate it's not the pharma company that also handles treatments then. That course also said that software patents does not exist as a concept.
Yeah, if I test my software all is good as well. As soon as the customer does something, he finds bugs, because I didn't thought about that situation.
As the drug user in the end isn't qualified enough, they should exactly test like that and not just what they think is right
But maybe my analogy isn't completely working in that case...
There are several problems here. One being you cannot train every nurse or everyone self-adminestering the medicin to be a professional in it. Which was the hidden assumption made in the course. So "test it exactly like that" does not really work.
I think, I worded it wrong
Testing exactly for the results you expect is a good start to verify functionality, but you also need tests, that can bring up whatever, so you get a better view of the risk profile
But I'm not a pharmacist, so I'm just taking out of my ass anyway