Originally Posted by
Radgirl
I have posted before about these trials which are easy to masquerade as life saving NHS work. In fact I can think of very very few clinical reasons for such drones. Correction, I can think of absolutely none on the mainland. We simply do not need many urgent interhospital transfers of small items - we move teams of doctors and patients themselves. I worry the so called trial seems to be about whether you can put some item in a drone from A to B which isnt difficult but fails to demonstrate or even investigate any benefit.
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
Radgirl sums it up nicely,
If you are bored enough to find the time to wade through the typical Green inferred waffle in the 24 page submission ,you might find yourself wondering how many so called extra taxi deliveries would equal the cost of acquisition, operator training and maintenance of what would no doubt be very expensive kit.
This seems to me to be yet another project that would fail a reality check whilst pandering to the section of society that thinks that it has all the answers to
the failings of the modern world. If you want to use drones usefully ,take them to the parts of the world where transport is a REAL challenge.