I can see both sides of the argument. The case for personal responsibility is strong, but I can also see the case that this product is deceptively dangerous, i.e.- it resembles many other non-dangerous products, leading to easy consumer confusion, when in fact it is particularly dangerous. Not many other toys carry a risk of _surgery_.

But all of that aside, my issue is that the CEO doesn't seem to be particularly sympathetic to a product which has hurt his customers. I'm sure I don't have the whole story, but the impression is that the CEO's attitude is one of "well, we warned you, what more do you want?" rather concern for safety and taking creative action to protect customers.