I mean if it was a clinical trial that was terminated, it likely depended on components that would be supplied to the patient throughout the duration, for telemetry or data storage or otherwise. If the implant becomes unusable, it is not a good idea to keep it hanging around in the body, especially if it wasn't designed for long term use.
Would have to check out the particulars... But I would hope the patient was strongly encouraged to have it removed rather than forced, but doesn't see a difference because it would no longer work regardless.
It had an external unit that recived data wirelessly, but it is not clear if it processed that locally, or transmitted it to a remote facility. Even if it did local processing, it may have needed to periodically check in to keep functioning, or to upload data to a company server.
If not fully coerced (on an argument that that is the company's property), it was still most likely it was semi-corcerced, in that the company was bankrupt, and while they would have had funds put aside for removal of implants at end of trial, and contracts with a neruosurgeon, once they officially liquidated that would vanish.
If it needed to be removed later (like once the battery ran out) well it would need to go through the public health system, which could lead to delays. If they did not have her go to the very same surgeon, for any reason, then the one who did see her would probably need to decide how to approach removal based on what they can see in imaging (since they won't have official instructions from the company), etc.
Nothing about this is ideal. Which is the medical ethicists' point. Lifechanging implants like these need to be supported for the life of the patient, especially if they cannot be easily replace with some newer improved version.
And while this was only a medical trial, a production vision implant was abandoned by its creator ( https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete ), and while the implants do continue to work, if anything goes wrong, they won't get fixed. Like even if the problem was in an external parts that a normal electronics hacker could fix, nobody outside the company knows how they work, what could break, and obviously they are not releasing source code or schematics or anything. So you would need to try to find somebody to reverse engineering a cutting edge medical device, to try to fix it.
(This company was merged into another as an alternative to bankruptcy, so perhaps not all hope is lost. The merged company is mainly focused on its drug delivery system, but with respect to the implants the merged company's CEO intends to do what is "right from an ethical perspective.", which for the retinal implants presumably means providing basic technical and medical support, while no longer manufacturing the retinal implants or accessories. They had a brain implant version in trials pre-merger, and it is unclear if the company will move forward with them when the clinical trial ends.)
This article is hot garbage. There’s a reference to a “termination order” but they then seem to extrapolate that to “terminating” the… device which they’ve anthropomorphized?
> It was more than a device being explanted from Patient R brain. Rather, the company was responsible for the creation of a new person.
> The device was the property of the company, not of the patient, despite the fact she appropriated the de novo agential capacities – resulting in an existential dependency with the BCI.
What does that even mean? I understand that this had a profound effect on her life, but the writing buries the lead here.
That in turn was based mostly the paper linked at the beginning, which was mostly concerned with the medical ethics of the scenario.
A different article elsewhere has claimed that the reason for the removal was actually that the device had a three year battery life. So even if she had legal ownership of the device (which seems unclear), it would die before too much longer. Replacing the battery in situ probably wasn't feasible. (How many brain surgeons are also micro-electronics experts, etc?)
No doctor would remove it, give it to a third party to replace the battery and then reimplant it. Even if they did, who could say if the external unit would need to be recalibrated to adjust for tiny differences in placement? And only a defunct company could do that.
Leaving it in there after the battery dies could be a problem. (If the battery ever corrosive leaked and burned through the implants shell... )
If required to save my life I would accept any tech in my body. I would also reverse engineer it and publish decompiled source code and public tools and dare them to sue me.
Would be the right to repair lawsuit of the decade.
11 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 38.4 ms ] threadWould have to check out the particulars... But I would hope the patient was strongly encouraged to have it removed rather than forced, but doesn't see a difference because it would no longer work regardless.
If not fully coerced (on an argument that that is the company's property), it was still most likely it was semi-corcerced, in that the company was bankrupt, and while they would have had funds put aside for removal of implants at end of trial, and contracts with a neruosurgeon, once they officially liquidated that would vanish.
If it needed to be removed later (like once the battery ran out) well it would need to go through the public health system, which could lead to delays. If they did not have her go to the very same surgeon, for any reason, then the one who did see her would probably need to decide how to approach removal based on what they can see in imaging (since they won't have official instructions from the company), etc.
Nothing about this is ideal. Which is the medical ethicists' point. Lifechanging implants like these need to be supported for the life of the patient, especially if they cannot be easily replace with some newer improved version.
And while this was only a medical trial, a production vision implant was abandoned by its creator ( https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete ), and while the implants do continue to work, if anything goes wrong, they won't get fixed. Like even if the problem was in an external parts that a normal electronics hacker could fix, nobody outside the company knows how they work, what could break, and obviously they are not releasing source code or schematics or anything. So you would need to try to find somebody to reverse engineering a cutting edge medical device, to try to fix it.
(This company was merged into another as an alternative to bankruptcy, so perhaps not all hope is lost. The merged company is mainly focused on its drug delivery system, but with respect to the implants the merged company's CEO intends to do what is "right from an ethical perspective.", which for the retinal implants presumably means providing basic technical and medical support, while no longer manufacturing the retinal implants or accessories. They had a brain implant version in trials pre-merger, and it is unclear if the company will move forward with them when the clinical trial ends.)
> It was more than a device being explanted from Patient R brain. Rather, the company was responsible for the creation of a new person.
> The device was the property of the company, not of the patient, despite the fact she appropriated the de novo agential capacities – resulting in an existential dependency with the BCI.
What does that even mean? I understand that this had a profound effect on her life, but the writing buries the lead here.
That in turn was based mostly the paper linked at the beginning, which was mostly concerned with the medical ethics of the scenario.
A different article elsewhere has claimed that the reason for the removal was actually that the device had a three year battery life. So even if she had legal ownership of the device (which seems unclear), it would die before too much longer. Replacing the battery in situ probably wasn't feasible. (How many brain surgeons are also micro-electronics experts, etc?)
No doctor would remove it, give it to a third party to replace the battery and then reimplant it. Even if they did, who could say if the external unit would need to be recalibrated to adjust for tiny differences in placement? And only a defunct company could do that.
Leaving it in there after the battery dies could be a problem. (If the battery ever corrosive leaked and burned through the implants shell... )
Welcome to the brave new world
Would be the right to repair lawsuit of the decade.