I ha' read i' th' papers that great folk (fair faw
In the next eight years, the authors identified fifty (50) papers  on how FAW devices are the best devices to avoid hypothermia at various stage of a surgery.
In order to truly determine if the evidence is conclusive on whether FAW devices poses an increase infection risk or not, this paper will discuss in details the six (6) papers claiming that FAW devices pose no increased infection risk and the six (5) papers arguing the opposite.
The six (6) papers arguing FAW devices pose no increased infection risk:
All of the papers identified to argue for FAW devices as posing no infection risk except Sessler et.
Most of the papers identified to argue for FAW devices as posing an infection rirk used the experimental method.
Among the papers identified to argue for FAW devices as posing no infection risk, only three (Kurz, Melling  and Barie ) reported actual clinical SSI data.
(29) Gabriella Blum contends that the argument for consequentialism is particularly strong in the case of armed conflict, which "is about committing evils and choosing between evils." (30) Following Blum's logic, this Part brackets the deontological critique of FAWs--understood as the view that the use of FAWs is wrong independently of its consequences--and focuses on the possibility of regulatory regimes that minimize suffering in practice.
A consequentialist approach focused on minimizing harm also makes less compelling the objection that the use of FAWs reduces accountability.
I focus, therefore, on the question whether, as a legal matter, FAWs can be regulated in ways that minimize the suffering that they cause.
Whether FAWs can be deployed lawfully depends in part on whether they can be used in a manner that avoids civilian casualties.
Whatever we might think about the capabilities of FAWs as a general matter, in some circumstances the use of FAWs will be wholly unproblematic.