2 ms·

Diabetes falls under dangerous medical conditions, and they have a variety of wearable devices now for continuous glucose monitoring that are popular. They're i

Diabetes falls under dangerous medical conditions, and they have a variety of wearable devices now for continuous glucose monitoring that are popular. They're invasive though, can allow other people to learn about your medical history just by looking at you (depending on what you're wearing/which device you have), can complicate intimacy and contact sports, and in general the patients would be much happier if a smart watch could do it without specialized hardware. There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this.

DoctorOetker 4y ago
> There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this. A 2017 survey found only 32% of the US population wears a watch daily, so for a large fraction wearing a glucose monitor in the form of a watch would also constitute a change, and correlate with diabetes patients. Under the lip or monitoring the inside of the cheeks, etc may be even less conspicuous than wearing a watch. Perhaps you might wish to test your assumptions too, and again, neither me nor you should be the arbiters in this matter: the patients ought to be the ultimate arbiters. https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/most-consumers-dont-wear-a-watch-daily-survey-finds/ https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/most-consumers-d... I don't understand why a person would contort themselves into less defensible or self-contradictory stances. It would seem engineers or others involved in the field would welcome the suggestion that perhaps there is a more tractable way, that might simultaneously be more acceptable by the patients themselves. Observe I don't accuse you of causing the miscommunication. Everyone is prone to following the herd, including me. While it isn't proven the patients would prefer a miniaturized device under the lips (or somehow reversibly attached to a teeth in a way that it doesn't interfere with eating, kissing, etc..) let us suppose for a moment that it actually turned out to be the case, after a survey or after actual trials. In this case it's not the fault of the average employee or engineer in the field that they were designing thick-skin CGM devices before the survey or trials were done. The real question in that case is: who was or wasn't aware before the survey that the red mucous membranes were easier? If not why not? It's obvious these tissues are redder due to better visibility of blood. Those that were aware before the eventual survey: did they yes or no tell their superiors? why not? if they did, they are absolved, but the line of questioning now transfers to the superior. Why didn't they order a survey asking for patients concerns about the idea, and if they would consider switching to such a product if properly executed? Why didn't they consult the patients?

DoctorOetker 4y ago

> There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this. A 2017 survey found only 32% of the US population wears a watch daily, so for a large fraction wearing a glucose monitor in the form of a watch would also constitute a change, and correlate with diabetes patients. Under the lip or monitoring the inside of the cheeks, etc may be even less conspicuous than wearing a watch. Perhaps you might wish to test your assumptions too, and again, neither me nor you should be the arbiters in this matter: the patients ought to be the ultimate arbiters. https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/most-consumers-dont-wear-a-watch-daily-survey-finds/ https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/most-consumers-d... I don't understand why a person would contort themselves into less defensible or self-contradictory stances. It would seem engineers or others involved in the field would welcome the suggestion that perhaps there is a more tractable way, that might simultaneously be more acceptable by the patients themselves. Observe I don't accuse you of causing the miscommunication. Everyone is prone to following the herd, including me. While it isn't proven the patients would prefer a miniaturized device under the lips (or somehow reversibly attached to a teeth in a way that it doesn't interfere with eating, kissing, etc..) let us suppose for a moment that it actually turned out to be the case, after a survey or after actual trials. In this case it's not the fault of the average employee or engineer in the field that they were designing thick-skin CGM devices before the survey or trials were done. The real question in that case is: who was or wasn't aware before the survey that the red mucous membranes were easier? If not why not? It's obvious these tissues are redder due to better visibility of blood. Those that were aware before the eventual survey: did they yes or no tell their superiors? why not? if they did, they are absolved, but the line of questioning now transfers to the superior. Why didn't they order a survey asking for patients concerns about the idea, and if they would consider switching to such a product if properly executed? Why didn't they consult the patients?