3 ms·

I've said before that I think it should be illegal to sunset a device without open-sourcing the technology needed to support it. Medical implants of any kind ar

by advael 5y ago

I've said before that I think it should be illegal to sunset a device without open-sourcing the technology needed to support it. Medical implants of any kind are an especially compelling case for this Probably medical devices should also have very strict requirements regarding auto-updates, including provisions that prevent them from being remotely disabled This seems like a problem we can't solve without legislation. We need either these sorts of legal requirements for implantable devices, or to blanket ban private firms from working in this space. I think the former would be preferable

varenc 5y ago
> including provisions that prevent them from being remotely disabled From the article, none of these implants were remotely disabled. The article's first paragraph is deceptively written to make it seem like that though. Further down it clarifies: > But in 2013, after four years of regular use, Campbell’s system shut down in the subway station, and despite some repair attempts by Second Sight, never worked again. So it sounds like a random hardware failure, which the company attempted to repair, but failed. Also in 2013 Second Sight was still 6+ years away from going bankrupt. Seems like this implant wasn't replaced/repaired because it would have required another surgery, not because of the bankruptcy.
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  The article is incredibly misleading. They don't mention the year that the events in the first paragraph happened until halfway down the page and even if you read that far you might not have connected the two. Her implant failing is not even related to the company going bankrupt (although maybe it was a precursor)
  - YeBanKo 5y ago
    The article is not even a slightly bit misleading, if you read it in full and without any prior expectation or reading other comments. Here is a quote: "took hundreds of patients on a roller-coaster ride of technological innovations, regulatory successes, medical and financial setbacks, and a near-total meltdown" – this is not simply about how they abandoned the tech or almost went bankrupt. This is also about the challenges they and their patients faced along the way.
chroma 5y ago
As other comments have mentioned, the article is misleading. No software or hardware was remotely disabled. Parts failed over time. Once the company went out of business, support was no longer available. Yes, this is terrible, but there was no malicious intent. If anything they tried mightily to support their customer base despite losing money the whole time. More importantly: If you require that medical devices be supported indefinitely, you will heavily discourage anyone from making medical devices. Such a requirement is an endorsement of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics.[1] Had this company not existed, these people would have been blind for the rest of their lives. Instead, this company tried to help people and ran out of money. The net effect is that blind people were able to see for years. This is much better than the alternative. If you want to assign blame, assign it to the FDA. They're the ones who make it practically impossible to roll out any new medical technology. Their byzantine rules prevent the sale of devices as simple as epipens.[2] Their requirements (though well-intended) drastically increase treatment costs and slow the pace of progress. 1. From https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... > The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular. 2. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-d...
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > As other comments have mentioned, the article is misleading. No software or hardware was remotely disabled. Nothing in the article is misleading in this regard, it says nothing about remote disabling of the systems. This is entirely a creation of this thread, and not the article. The word "remote" doesn't even show up in the article. Your comment is the one that's misleading by asserting things about the article that aren't even remotely true.
  - 5y ago

by advael 5y ago

varenc 5y ago

> including provisions that prevent them from being remotely disabled From the article, none of these implants were remotely disabled. The article's first paragraph is deceptively written to make it seem like that though. Further down it clarifies: > But in 2013, after four years of regular use, Campbell’s system shut down in the subway station, and despite some repair attempts by Second Sight, never worked again. So it sounds like a random hardware failure, which the company attempted to repair, but failed. Also in 2013 Second Sight was still 6+ years away from going bankrupt. Seems like this implant wasn't replaced/repaired because it would have required another surgery, not because of the bankruptcy.

weird-eye-issue 5y ago
The article is incredibly misleading. They don't mention the year that the events in the first paragraph happened until halfway down the page and even if you read that far you might not have connected the two. Her implant failing is not even related to the company going bankrupt (although maybe it was a precursor)
- YeBanKo 5y ago
  The article is not even a slightly bit misleading, if you read it in full and without any prior expectation or reading other comments. Here is a quote: "took hundreds of patients on a roller-coaster ride of technological innovations, regulatory successes, medical and financial setbacks, and a near-total meltdown" – this is not simply about how they abandoned the tech or almost went bankrupt. This is also about the challenges they and their patients faced along the way.

chroma 5y ago

As other comments have mentioned, the article is misleading. No software or hardware was remotely disabled. Parts failed over time. Once the company went out of business, support was no longer available. Yes, this is terrible, but there was no malicious intent. If anything they tried mightily to support their customer base despite losing money the whole time. More importantly: If you require that medical devices be supported indefinitely, you will heavily discourage anyone from making medical devices. Such a requirement is an endorsement of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics.[1] Had this company not existed, these people would have been blind for the rest of their lives. Instead, this company tried to help people and ran out of money. The net effect is that blind people were able to see for years. This is much better than the alternative. If you want to assign blame, assign it to the FDA. They're the ones who make it practically impossible to roll out any new medical technology. Their byzantine rules prevent the sale of devices as simple as epipens.[2] Their requirements (though well-intended) drastically increase treatment costs and slow the pace of progress. 1. From https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... > The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular. 2. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-d...

Jtsummers 5y ago
> As other comments have mentioned, the article is misleading. No software or hardware was remotely disabled. Nothing in the article is misleading in this regard, it says nothing about remote disabling of the systems. This is entirely a creation of this thread, and not the article. The word "remote" doesn't even show up in the article. Your comment is the one that's misleading by asserting things about the article that aren't even remotely true.
- 5y ago