> we were in discussions with a defibrillator company. They tried to argue that the defibrillator was not critical to the patient's life, and thus not subject to the relevant regulation, because the patient was already dead
I'm amazed that they would take this line. In many cases, a person's heart is still very active when it is shocked by the external defibrillator, and the person is still breathing. In some types of VF (see my comment elsewhere [0]), the problem is that the normal synchronised contraction of the cardiac muscle fibres has broken down, and the heart is thus quivering spasmodically, not cleanly pumping. To break this cycle, the defibrillator emits a massive shock that causes the muscle fibres to simultaneously go into their 'reset' phase, and the hope is that the heart's natural pace maker (the sino-atrial node) can then take back control. It's like the defibrillator is shouting "will you all shut the fuck up!" into a crowded auditorium full of people talking over each other rather than listening to a presenter. The defibrillator can't magically restart an insert dead body.
I'm amazed that they would take this line. In many cases, a person's heart is still very active when it is shocked by the external defibrillator, and the person is still breathing. In some types of VF (see my comment elsewhere [0]), the problem is that the normal synchronised contraction of the cardiac muscle fibres has broken down, and the heart is thus quivering spasmodically, not cleanly pumping. To break this cycle, the defibrillator emits a massive shock that causes the muscle fibres to simultaneously go into their 'reset' phase, and the hope is that the heart's natural pace maker (the sino-atrial node) can then take back control. It's like the defibrillator is shouting "will you all shut the fuck up!" into a crowded auditorium full of people talking over each other rather than listening to a presenter. The defibrillator can't magically restart an insert dead body.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29821574#29837367