124
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 125 points 1 year ago

For those not reading the story, which appears to be many, the company that services the implant went bankrupt. The implant was experimental. There exists no one to service it any longer. It will pose a health risk down the road without someone servicing it.

The only thing that forced her to have the implant removed is the fact that it would eventually lead to her untimely death if it remained in with no one to take care of the device.

[-] MadMenace@beehaw.org 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even if her death is guaranteed by leaving it in (and I'm not sure it is without more information), does that make it ethical to remove? Perhaps the patient would prefer a shorter life with greater quality in regards to her seizures. After all, don't we allow and accept cancer patients to forgo treatment and enjoy the time they have left?

[-] Griseowulfin@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

It sits on the edge of the concept of informed consent in the realm of things like SaaS and copyright. Obviously doctors wouldn't hold her down and pull it out, but obviously it probably was not useful to leave in. I wonder if there was a contract stating it had to be removed upon demand, like at the end of a trial or the bankruptcy that occurred. It's something that we're going to likely see in the future, as medical technology starts using computers to actively treat disorders.

load more comments (33 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
124 points (99.2% liked)

Science

13006 readers
72 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS