4 ms·
My guess is that it was structured such that the company still owned the implant, rather than the person in whom it was implanted.
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoI 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.