In other words, they would argue they don't need to take security seriously because there isn't a serious threat. The rich uncle is a good example of a somewhat realistic situation, but I don't agree that it would set off any flood of concern. Probably very few would care, except maybe the uncle's other relatives. But settling that lawsuit later is a lot cheaper than implementing a lot of security now. Remember, there are lots of ways to kill someone with few or no traces, as long as there is no other evidence. In the uncle's case, the murderous heir would be the prime suspect if there were any whiff of foul play and would leave other evidence like browser search history. Not that the crime couldn't happen, it would just be pretty rare. Is that enough to change the economic calculus for the medical device company?
Or look at it this way. If the murder is undetected, the device company isn't in trouble and has no reason to add security. If the murder is detected, the criminal is convicted and others are deterred from using the same methods. The crime gets added to the list of all the other solved murders which used candlesticks in the library and such. Either way, the medical device company has no motivation to change anything.