Yeah but if it's a hospital, they should be able to operate without these IT systems. Nothing critical / life-or-death / personal injury should rely on Windows / IT systems.

> they should be able to operate without these IT systems.

Is that even possible any more? (That said, "operate" isn't a boolean, it's a continuum between perfect service and none, with various levels of degraded service between, even if you mean "operate" in the sense of "perform a surgical operation" rather than "any treatment or care of any kind").

All medical notes being printed in hard-copy could be done, that's the relatively easy part. But there's a lot of stuff which is inherently IT these days, gene sequencing, CT scans, etc., there's a lot that computers add which humans can't do ourselves — even video consultation (let alone remote surgery) with experts from a different hospital, which does involve a human, that human can't be everywhere at once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth

> Nothing critical / life-or-death / personal injury should rely on Windows / IT systems.

If you think that's bad, you may want to ensure you're seated before reading this about the UK nuclear deterrent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Command_System

Also Silicon Valley: AI will replace doctors and nurses.

Why? Because you simply wish it to be so?

Because the suppliers of IT systems (eg Microsoft, Crowdstrike) do not agree that they can be used for life-critical purposes

If someone is injured or dies because the hospital has inadequate backup processes in the event of a Windows outage, some or maybe all liability for negligence falls on those who designed the hospital that way, not the IT supplier who didn't agree to it.

If your assumptions rest on corporate entities or actual decision makers being held legally liable, then you've got a lot of legwork ahead of you to demonstrate why that's a reasonable presupposition.

Because it's evidently a bad idea and there are reasonable alternatives.

That’s easy for you to say, with the benefit of recency bias, and with presumably zero experience in running a hospital.

That's not about experience, that's about following the regulated standards. This is well known ever since technology (not computers) got into hospitals.

None of the points you mention detracts from the correctness of his/her statement.

And? People and institutions constantly make bad decisions for which there are reasonable alternatives, and that's assuming that the incentives at play for decision makers are aligned with what we would want them to be, which is often not the case. Not that that ends up mattering much except as an explanatory device, because people and institutions constantly pursue bad ideas even seen in terms of their own interests.

It would be like orthopedic surgeons heading down to harbor freight to pick up their saws instead of using medical grade versions.

The tool isn't fit for purpose

Because you should always have a backup.

When has a software company successfully been sued (or settled) over this liability?