> The conversation should go like this:

I think you're missing the end to that conversation:

>PM: "Ok, we don't have 6 weeks. I can give you 4, but we're just gonna have to make do."

> Dev: "Okay, which features would you like to cut?"

PM: We can't cut any of them. We need features A,B,C in the product and we need it in 4 weeks.

Here we insert a rant from the PM about one of the following:

1) Leadership

2) Hard work

3) Threats about job security

4) Recalling that one time you delivered something ahead of schedule so why is this different

5) I see you getting up to get coffee at least twice a day so stop goofing off and get it done

I think you're vastly overestimating how much power/control said Dev has over the whole process at these sorts of companies.

Sure, they can quit, but if they felt empowered to quit they probably wouldn't be there in the first place: I don't think anyone's busting down the door to work at MedicalBusinessTM.

> we should require licensing for working on safety-critical applications.

Fully agreed, though with some misgivings.

Incorporating safety-critical software into the "professional engineering" spectrum would almost certainly require some things that are seen as near-heresy to the software community, like requiring a 4-year degree from an ABET-accredited program.

Still, I agree.

I agree with your sentiment 100%, but if you insist on doing things safely while your colleagues do not, you might get a reputation for being slow and be earmarked for replacement. Perhaps it's worth losing a job over, but your replacement will cut corners so the net effect is patients unsafe + you have no job. It feels reminiscent of the prisoner's dilemma.