3 ms·
My 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. W
by kevingadd 3y ago
My 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.