[devopsforlyfe]

> Doctors' specialization is protected by law for safety and liability purposes.

Yet programmers writing embedded software for medical devices are not regulated for safety and reliability purposes, as far as I know. Why is that?

[agentultra]

The onus is up to the professional using the software to vet it before employing it in their practice, afaik.

There are some guidelines for writing software in regulated industries, eg: FDA Part 11 and Annex 11 in the EU for food and drug manufacturing.

However it's more of a speed limit situation. If you're willing to risk your client getting audited while you're speeding you could get yourself and your client in trouble with the industry watch dog.

That being said I think our industry does need professional recognition and liability. That's not a bad thing... it just means you can't be reckless and you have to have someone with a PE on your team. I know SV likes to move fast without their permission but that's insane when it comes to protecting the public interest. Just look at the vulnerabilities and shady practices in automobile automation, testing, verification, etc, etc.

We could do a lot better and build more reliable things if there were some guiding hands leading the way.

[mahyarm]

Because they are not real-time practitioners, so onerous testing processes can substitute. It's the same reason why drug researchers are not licensed.

[linkregister]

Historical reasons, most computer engineers and electrical engineers never bother to get their PE. Medical devices also have their own robust set of liability laws. Quality control is exhaustive, for the most part. (Security vulnerabilities excepted)