In as much as the Therac-25 machines were not developed and manufactured by the hospital, a certain degree of responsibility for the damages caused by them rests upon the hospital. There are a few reasons justifying that rationale. To start with, the choice of a particular health facility over another comes as a result of a patient’s conviction towards the credibility of the services offered by that hospital. In light of this, the hospital is responsible for failing to meet the patient’s expectation. Such failure puts the credibility of the hospital’s services in jeopardy. It is the hospital’s responsibility to uphold its credibility at all costs. Secondly, before rolling out any new technology, every institution should embark on carrying out many tests so as to be sure of the efficiency of the new machines. The fact that the Therac-25 administered dosages of over 10,000 units of radiation for prescriptions requiring not over 200 units clearly shows that the hospital did not take ample time in testing the efficiency of the machine.
On the other hand, the hospital may end up not responsible at all. The rationale behind such reasoning finds the basis on in two provisions. First, the Therac-25 machine was not manufactured by the hospital but by a different manufacturer. The only reason the machine made available for purchase is since it was tested by the relevant bodies. As a result, the hospital used the Therac-25 technology in utmost confidence that the machines passed the basic functionality test since they had already passed the test allowing their use in hospitals. Secondly, before a major diagnosis such as one including the use of new technology like the Therac-25, the hospitals require patients to fill in forms agreeing to undertake the treatment processes. The primary aim of such a requirement is to transfer any responsibility, resulting from any arising shortcomings during the process, from the hospital to the patient.