cyber-"terrorism"?

[Peter Mitchell]

Ian Johnson wrote:
> 
> I've not idea of the accuracy of the Sheffield story but....


It is completely accurate. See "NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST -
REPORT OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE INTO THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR IN
DOWNS SYNDROME SCREENING" Report submitted on behalf of the inquiry team
to the Chief Executive of the Northern General Hospital NHS Trust and
The Regional Director of Public Health, Sept 2001, perhaps still on the
DoH website. If not let me know and I will stick it up on mine. 


> 
> Amnio is an invasive procedure with a risk of harm (usually miscarriage)
> of
> (if memory serves) around 3%. This varies with the individual
> consultants
> skill.
> 
> In deciding whether to recommend amnio, medics base there decision on
> their
> assessment of the risk of Downs syndrome in that individual pregnancy.
> 
> This is done through computing odds based on the womans age / blood
> chemistry.
> Not generally available on the NHS, nuchal translucency measurement
> together
> with the above, (accurate estimation of the age of the pregnancy) and
> comparison
> with the fetal medicine foundations statistical database is generally
> more accurate.
> 
> On this basis a statistical risk is calculated.  "High risk" generally
> means
> amnio is statistically a lower risk.  I believe these computations are
> generally done by computer, and as they involve date based arithmetic
> would
> have been vulnerable potentially to Y2K.


Exactly. The Y2K error was an intermittent one in that many women who
should have been flagged as high risk, were not, while others were. This
is why it was not noticed until May 2001. Being intermittent does not
make an error unimportant. 


--
Pete Mitchell