[throwaway3306a]

What if it turns out they harmed the patient by insisting on following the standard procedure during a worldwide outage? Isn't that the same kind of liability risk, and is the regulation really going to protect them in this case? If so, isn't that a hugely problematic regulation?

[AlotOfReading]

In that case the nurse or doctor has a strong defense of "I was following policy" for their insurance and boss.

The people writing hospital policies or regulations aren't thinking about individual patient outcomes unless some notable news story came out recently, and even then it's maybe the third or fourth priority on a list a hundred items long.

[sigmoid10]

We don't know that this is what actually happened in OP's case. I was referring to the comment you replied to and there it is pretty obvious that the regulation is exists to prevent harm from being done. But even if there is a clear justification, you would expose yourself to a lawsuit and need argue all this in court. I can totally understand why people don't want that, especially in the US. So if anything, you should blame the legal system.

[staticman2]

I doubt refusing to treat patients when the computer is down insulates you from malpractice claims.

[FeepingCreature]

Yes, and yes. Welcome to our messed up society.