5 ms·
I believe the correct approach is to create a non-medical label for the test. Our watches have heart-rate monitors, not EKGs. An EKG is a medical device with hi
by pedalpete 3y ago
I believe the correct approach is to create a non-medical label for the test. Our watches have heart-rate monitors, not EKGs. An EKG is a medical device with highly accurate measurement of heart-rate for medical purposes. A heart-rate monitor, gives a decent approximation, not good enough for medical purposes.
Nobody calls an EKG a heart-rate monitor. The correct term would let a consumer have some insight into their blood sugar levels, but a diabetic would clearly not be confused into thinking this was a replacement for the monitoring they require.
- kevingadd 3y agoMy fear is that "a diabetic would clearly not be confused into thinking this was a replacement for the monitoring they require" is an impossible bar to clear. We've seen how good ordinary people are at using technology even when it has clear documentation. Another post on this article also points out that traditional monitoring costs money on an ongoing basis, which would create a temptation to try and 'get by' with tech like this even if it's not adequate.
- pedalpete 3y agoThese are good points, but we can't ignore that this technology is valuable for non-diabetics. We also know that "preventing" technology from being used is a losing battle - though I'd be happy to hear of examples contrary to this. If a diabetic is going to attempt to use the device as a diagnostic, but they are aware that it is not fit for that purpose, that is their own choice. Like injecting insulin by "feel". Perhaps a better approach would be that insulin be delivered in collaboration with a certified device. That would close the loop on the amount of insulin being injected. I'm no expert on diabetes though, so i don't know the actual implications of that.