Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
But, can risks really be quantified? Risk assessors and actuary experts would answer with a resounding
“yes.” Medical practitioners routinely share risks with patients in preoperative preparations, usually in
the form of a probability. However, the general public's perception is often that one person's risk is
different from another's and that risk is in the “eye of the beholder.” Some of the rationale appears
to be rooted in the controversial risks associated with tobacco use and other daily decisions, such as
choice of modes of transportation. What most people perceive as risks and how they prioritize those
risks is only partly driven by the actual objective assessment of risk, i.e., the severity of the hazard
combined with the magnitude, duration, and frequency of the exposure to the hazard. For example, the
smoker may be aware that cigarette smoke is hazardous, but she not directly aware of what these are
(e.g., carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and carcinogenic metal compounds). She has
probably read the conspicuous warning labels many times as she held the pack in their hands, but these
really have not “rung true” to her. They may have never met anyone with emphysema or lung cancer, or
they may not be concerned (yet) with the effects on the unborn (i.e.,
in
utero
exposure).
7
Psychologists
also tell us that many in this age group have a feeling of invulnerability. Those who think about it may
also believe that they will have plenty of time to end the habit before it does any long-term damage.
Thus, we should be aware that what we are saying to people, no matter how technically sound and
convincing it is to us as engineers and scientists, may be simply a din to our targeted audience.
The converse is also true. We may be completely persuaded based upon data, facts, and models that
something clearly does not cause significant damage, but those we are trying to convince of this finding
may not buy it. They may think we have some vested interest, or that they find us guilty by association
with a group they do not trust, or that we are simply “guns for hire” for those who are sponsoring
our research or financially backing the product development. The target group may not understand us
because we are using jargon and are not clear in how we communicate the risks. So, the perception of
risk will not match the risk being quantified.
This chapter deals with concepts important to all engineering fields. The principal value added by
engineers is in the improvement in the quality of human health. Engineers add value when we decrease
risk, a crucial concern of bioethics. By extension, reliability tells us and everyone else just how well
our designs are performing by reducing overall risk. What we design must continue to serve its purpose
throughout its useful life.
RISK
AS
A
BIOETHICAL
CONCEPT
As is generally understood, risk is the chance that something will go wrong or that some undesirable
event will occur. Every time we get on a bicycle, for example, we are taking a risk that we might be in
an accident and may damage the bike, get hurt, injure others, or even die in a mishap. The understanding
of the factors that lead to a risk is called risk analysis and the reduction of this risk (e.g., by wearing
a helmet and staying on bike paths) is risk management. Risk management is often differentiated from
risk assessment, which comprises the scientific considerations of a risk.
8
Risk management includes the
policies, laws, and other societal aspects of risk.
Engineers constantly engage in risk analysis, assessment, and management. Engineers must consider
the interrelationships among factors that put people at risk, suggesting that we are risk analysts. Engineers
provide decision makers with thoughtful studies based upon the sound application of the physical sciences
and, therefore, are risk assessors by nature. Engineers control things and, as such, are risk managers.
