@Yell.  You're most recent post was helpful in bringing us to the conclusion, which I am going to propose to the WHO.  Would you like to join my think tank?

Okay, so the proposal to the WHO will be:

"Have an exchange program whereby glass syringes, along with the how to's of proper sterilization, are exchanged for plastic syringes in underdeveloped regions."

I have withdrawn the recommendation to ban the plastic syringe, in consideration of Einstein's campaign contributors.

xeno syndicated mockery segment:
"The plastic syringe is merely an example of how we create technology which either intentionally or unintentionally kills us."

Plastic syringes are 100% better than no syringes. Nobody is forcing idiots to reuse needles and kill people. Are you suggesting invasions, occupations, and martial law to police people's reuse of syringes? Because other syringes can be reused and spread disease too. And they're more expensive, so more people will die for lack of them as well. Do you even finish a thought before you post?

"The people who came out with the plastic syringe (hopefully) designed it without regard to the effect it would have."

Cheaper syringes = More syringes = Lived saved. You obviously have a problem with this.

"HOPEFULLY they didn't know that people in underdeveloped countries would attempt to re-use them.  Or did they?"

This is no different from other syringes. Except that, when others syringes cannot be afford, the patient is dead and there's no issue with idiots reusing syringes.

"Too often is technology designed via a top-down paradigm: the technology has a one-dimensional intended use, and "directions" for the intended use often go unheeded by the users."

That's a problem with people too often being morons, not technology.

"New technology should rather be designed via a down-up paradigm, where the people who will actually use the technology provide directions the designer about how THE USER intends to use the technology."

That's absolutely [completely] retarded. You're proposing that poor, illiterate dirt farmers design medical equipment. You're making vague statements without any concrete examples. How? What should they do differently? What's an example of how this could be done, producing better results?

"If HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis, etc., has been spread due to the re-use of plastic syringes, who is to blame?  The users of the technology or the designer?"

Seeing as plastic syringes spread diseases just like other syringes, the users of the technology. Let's also note that the vast majority of people suffering from these diseases get them from being trashy whores, not from syringes. No technology can combat this cultural phenomenon.

"The mindset of designers of new technologies needs to change."

Examples? What the hell are you talking about?

"Force it:  hold designers / producers accountable for the effects their products have on our societies."

That's a wonderful way to prohibit the development of life-saving devices! Some moron might hurt himself with a knife/bike/car/ANYTHING, so we should sue manufacturers! Syringes used to deliver life-saving medicine can be used by idiots to hurt people, therefore there should be no syringes and nobody should get medicines that require injection.

"@ Yell.  What do you suppose, then?  Do nothing?  Ban the plastic syringe and have an exchange program whereby glass syringes, along with the how to's of proper sterilization, are exchanged for plastic syringes in underdeveloped regions."

That's a wonderful idea. Spend a lot of time, money, energy, and man-hours giving them glass syringes to reuse improperly to spread diseases!

"Sometimes, life is a zero-sum game. Get over it."

Why, considering the horrid implications of what the film "Puncture" is suggesting, is it so easy for you to say this, Justinian?

> Justinian I wrote:

> Xeno,

Because I have been enlightened by "The Prince," "Dictator's Handbook," and "History of the Peloponnesean War." I used to be an idealist, until I discovered how futile changing the state of affairs is. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. I accept it, and I move on.

I think this attitude is irresponsible, and if it is held by people in positions of influence in government and corporations, God help us!

http://firstaid.ygoy.com/2010/08/11/how-to-sterilize-a-needle-for-first-aid/

seems like it's easy to sterilize every type of needle

poor people often make their own alcohol, potent stuff too

Based on what evidence? Nobody putting a syringe to good use thinks cheap soap sterilizes anything.

What evidence do you have that combustible materials reaching the necessary temperatures are less expensive than alcohol or other cheap chemicals?

Edit: I don't mean to demand evidence and references for everything--I hate it when people do that to be a nuisance/troll--but I legitimately question your premises. I hate it when idiots claim to legitimately question things when their questions are absurd, too. But I don't think we're working with nearly enough facts here to follow you to your conclusions.

Poor areas unable to purchase even cheap chemicals are surely not providing their own doctors, so shouldn't we question the conduct of the aid workers delivering/administering these drugs through syringes?

It sounds to me like a lot more knowledge of what's going on on the ground is required to come to any conclusions on the topic.

>>Your objection that glass syringes would be more expensive, for example.  Reusable glass syringes wouldn't be that much more expensive if they were produced in the same number as disposable plastic syringes.<<

Based on what? They're more expensive to make and more expensive to ship. That's real money and a real number less that can be bought with the same amount of limited currency.

>>Secondly, because they could be reused again and again, they prove to be cheaper to the consumer than disposable plastic syringes (if they had actually not reused the one-time use syringes, that is).<<

This presumes that the fuel for heating is _that_ much cheaper than the chemicals for cleansing. This may or may not be true. In any event, that we have to question the actions of the aid organizations giving/administering substances with these syringes is not mitigated by a switch to glass.

I wish there was any simple conclusion to arrive at. It doesn't sound like aid organizations are responsibly disposing of syringes they don't expect to reuse responsibly, and these areas tend to have such weak and impoverished governments that they don't care or have no power/control anyway.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > xeno syndicated wrote:

> Reusable glass syringes wouldn't be that much more expensive if they were produced in the same number as disposable plastic syringes.

Care to explain why this is the case?  Not that I disagree with you.  Just want to get your reasoning on this one.

Just generally based on the notion of economies of scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_scale

The reason one-time syringes are being re-used is probably because there is a shortage of them.

Okay, I should clarify.  I'm agreeing with the theoretical concept of economies of scale, not necessarily that economies of scale would make the prices equivalent.  We don't really know the cost of raw materials (whether plastic is cheaper than metal) or the cost of manufacturing (it could be more expensive, for example, to heat metal into a malleable form than it would be to mold plastic).  Regardless, I'm still sitting this one out.