Do you know why they couldn't switch back to glass syringes?
It’s exactly the same way with contact lenses. When I was in college in the ’90s, I could get a pair of permanent contact lenses. They would cost a few hundred bucks, but they would last me several years if the prescription didn’t change. They were the same as glasses. You would clean them everyday and disinfect them, and they would serve quite well permanently.
But the contact lens industry decided that wasn’t good enough, and decided that they could sell subscription services for contact lenses that you would need to discard every night.
And those daily wear contact lenses, the disposable kind, basically forced out of the market the permanent ones and now the optometrist regards me as a Martian when I request permanent lenses instead.
* Or at least it should be. It seems that Pakistan is different.
As aviation has shown—where human error has been studied for decades—reducing mistakes is difficult and expensive because it requires multiple layers of quality assurance. In countries where labor is costly, especially in healthcare, it has got to actually be cheaper to use single-use equipment, with the added benefit of reducing the risk of infection through that route to zero.
And we had a big scandal locally. Were they doing a shoddy job of colonoscopies? Probably. But genetics left no doubt that they were using one needle per jab, but one syringe per patient. And drawing up from multi-use vials. Stick the hep C patient, in pulling back a bit ends up in the syringe. Discard needle, syringe is still infected. New needle, old syringe, draw from the vial again, vial is now infected.
The same goes for sterilizing such things in a medical setting. I think HCPs are very accustomed to the disposable and pre-sterilized supplies that they don't even consider an item's sterile status or the need to sterilize it after use. So this is the pitfall that comes with all the disposable stuff: that routine sterilization is forgotten as a skill or as a necessity.