This article was based on this one, which is a little better: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-implant-removed-against-her-will/ https:

This article was based on this one, which is a little better: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-implant-removed-against-her-will/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-im.... That in turn was based mostly the paper linked at the beginning, which was mostly concerned with the medical ethics of the scenario. A different article elsewhere has claimed that the reason for the removal was actually that the device had a three year battery life. So even if she had legal ownership of the device (which seems unclear), it would die before too much longer. Replacing the battery in situ probably wasn't feasible. (How many brain surgeons are also micro-electronics experts, etc?) No doctor would remove it, give it to a third party to replace the battery and then reimplant it. Even if they did, who could say if the external unit would need to be recalibrated to adjust for tiny differences in placement? And only a defunct company could do that. Leaving it in there after the battery dies could be a problem. (If the battery ever corrosive leaked and burned through the implants shell... )