4 ms·

Only insane if you don’t read what actually happened. Best comment from old thread: chroma 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [–] As other comments have me

Only insane if you don’t read what actually happened. Best comment from old thread: chroma 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [–] 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-eth 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-d https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-d...

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
> 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] Weird take, FDA regulations much like FAA regulations are put in place very often as 'paid-in-blood' from data on previous accidents and faulty devices.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

> 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] Weird take, FDA regulations much like FAA regulations are put in place very often as 'paid-in-blood' from data on previous accidents and faulty devices.