4 ms·

A brain implant changed her life. Then it was removed against her will

31 points by autotune 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> “Being forced to endure removal of the [device] … robbed her of the new person she had become with the technology,” Ienca and his colleagues wrote. “The company was responsible for the creation of a new person … as soon as the device was explanted, that person was terminated.” Wow! That's some bold transhumanism! How many people would be able to say the same thing in other, more natural contexts?
- RunningDroid 3y ago
  >“The company was responsible for the creation of a new person … as soon as the device was explanted, that person was terminated.” That's certainly a novel perspective on the Ship of Theseus.
xchip 3y ago
[flagged]
- autotune 3y ago
  If you can enlighten us as to why you think it's "sensationalist click bait" I am sure we would all benefit from your perspective.
glorioushubris 3y ago
This is fascinating and harrowing, but I wish it contained more detail on why the devices were removed, particularly in Rita Leggett's case. The company that made her still-functioning device no longer existed, and trial participants were "advised to have their implants removed." But then she subsequently "tried to negotiate with the company?" And was then somehow compelled to have the device removed despite not wanting to--presumably due to some unarticulated consequence of not doing so; I don't think any surgeon would perform an operation like that without the patient consenting to it. I'd like to better understand how she was compelled to consent to the removal of something she "would have done anything" to keep. That seems like a relevant facet of the discussion of medical ethics.
- LocalH 3y ago
  My guess is that it was structured such that the company still owned the implant, rather than the person in whom it was implanted.
  - glorioushubris 3y ago
    Yeah, but if you own something that’s in my brain, I can imagine you legally forcing me to pay you for it, but I can’t imagine any court in the world forcing me to let you cut my head open.
    - infoseek12 3y ago
      I think the reason is explained by this quote: “Companies should have insurance that covers the maintenance of devices should volunteers need to keep them beyond the end of a clinical trial” I don’t think she was “forced” to have it surgically removed but this kind of complex implant probably requires ongoing maintenance in order to be operated safely. Since the company that made it went out of business there isn’t anyone around to provide the extremely specialized maintenance which is required. It’s a sad situation but also a complex one. I imagine providing long-term support for this kind of medical device is non-trivial.
tedunangst 3y ago
Somebody hunted her down in the street and shot her with a tranq gun or what? Why weren't they arrested for assault, unlawful detainment, etc.?
- norwalkbear 3y ago
  Device probably requirements maintenance and the patient requires antibiotics and constant monitoring for inflammation or something. Just spitball from learning about pacemakers
Avlin67 3y ago
she was not avle to run away ?
norwalkbear 3y ago
Frightening how companies could control desperate people in the near future

31 points by autotune 3y ago

> “Being forced to endure removal of the [device] … robbed her of the new person she had become with the technology,” Ienca and his colleagues wrote. “The company was responsible for the creation of a new person … as soon as the device was explanted, that person was terminated.” Wow! That's some bold transhumanism! How many people would be able to say the same thing in other, more natural contexts?

RunningDroid 3y ago
>“The company was responsible for the creation of a new person … as soon as the device was explanted, that person was terminated.” That's certainly a novel perspective on the Ship of Theseus.

xchip 3y ago

[flagged]

autotune 3y ago
If you can enlighten us as to why you think it's "sensationalist click bait" I am sure we would all benefit from your perspective.

glorioushubris 3y ago

This is fascinating and harrowing, but I wish it contained more detail on why the devices were removed, particularly in Rita Leggett's case. The company that made her still-functioning device no longer existed, and trial participants were "advised to have their implants removed." But then she subsequently "tried to negotiate with the company?" And was then somehow compelled to have the device removed despite not wanting to--presumably due to some unarticulated consequence of not doing so; I don't think any surgeon would perform an operation like that without the patient consenting to it. I'd like to better understand how she was compelled to consent to the removal of something she "would have done anything" to keep. That seems like a relevant facet of the discussion of medical ethics.

LocalH 3y ago
My guess is that it was structured such that the company still owned the implant, rather than the person in whom it was implanted.
- glorioushubris 3y ago
  Yeah, but if you own something that’s in my brain, I can imagine you legally forcing me to pay you for it, but I can’t imagine any court in the world forcing me to let you cut my head open.
  - infoseek12 3y ago
    I think the reason is explained by this quote: “Companies should have insurance that covers the maintenance of devices should volunteers need to keep them beyond the end of a clinical trial” I don’t think she was “forced” to have it surgically removed but this kind of complex implant probably requires ongoing maintenance in order to be operated safely. Since the company that made it went out of business there isn’t anyone around to provide the extremely specialized maintenance which is required. It’s a sad situation but also a complex one. I imagine providing long-term support for this kind of medical device is non-trivial.

tedunangst 3y ago

Somebody hunted her down in the street and shot her with a tranq gun or what? Why weren't they arrested for assault, unlawful detainment, etc.?

norwalkbear 3y ago
Device probably requirements maintenance and the patient requires antibiotics and constant monitoring for inflammation or something. Just spitball from learning about pacemakers

Avlin67 3y ago

she was not avle to run away ?

norwalkbear 3y ago

Frightening how companies could control desperate people in the near future