We're straying from the topic a bit Martin, but here goes:-
No argument on your first point, except perhaps that I would use the word "responsibility"
in lieu of "liability". Just like another other tradesman, the biomed must take responsibility for his own work and actions. Why should he not?
Reflecting upon my own experiences, how many times have I weighed up all possible options, and then "made the call" on equipment repairs in "unusual situations" (such as dealing with equipment donated for charity, that would otherwise remain un-repaired, and therefore of no use to man nor beast)? And how many times have I (with a heavy heart) heaved "beyond repair" kit into the skip? (not many times, actually, but ...)
Someone has to make those sort of decisions.
That's an interesting remark about "manuals", by the way. Again, in my own experience, not having the manual is almost the default situation. But how could you "prove" that the manufacturer never issued any guidelines or directives?
OK ... here's what I do:- simply make a note of the Job Report (or whatever document is being used to record the work):- "no technical information available"* - signed and dated as usual, of course.
I agree with what you're saying about CE marking. It effectively licences the manufacturer to describe the equipment as [whatever] and then sell it as such within the EU. In practical terms, it means nothing at all (and I have never really understood why others on this forum sometimes get so excited about it).
On your final point:- yeah, right. In Big Firms like the NHS, maybe.
*
As well as "equipment to be checked before use" (etc.), naturally. In other words, as you (I) have no control over where, how, by whom, and for what purpose the kit is going to be used, make it clear that liability is being passed on as the equipment itself changes hands (to be sold at auction, to a ward within a hospital somewhere, or the next container out to Africa, Kashmir or [insert your favourite country here]).
