3 ms·
A medical device should not require a subscription
by Ajay-p 2y ago
A medical device should not require a subscription
- chatmasta 2y agoWhat about a prescription though? If someone invented a device that could synthesize opiates and dispense them on demand, surely that should require a prescription?
- soraminazuki 2y agoThat's some unrelated fairy tale that makes this company look no better.
- chatmasta 2y agoI don’t think it’s unrelated. The title of this post is “prescription required,” not “subscription required.” Whether or not the device should be so regulated as to require a prescription is one question. But if the FDA has determined that it’s required (and thus you must get a prescription from your doctor), then why should you be able to use it after your prescription has expired? If your doctor prescribes you 1000mg of opiates, you don’t get more opiates when you run out of them unless you renew your prescription with your doctor. The problem in this case seems to be that the device requires a prescription in the first place. But since it does, I don’t see an issue with enforcing it.
- soraminazuki 2y agoIf the use of the device genuinely needs continued supervision of a doctor, that's fine. But that's no reason for the device maker to demand eternal payment, which I'm guessing is the case here? If that indeed is the case, then "prescription" is just some corporate lawyer word game.
- cwillu 2y agoThere are far better analogies than opiates though. There's no reason why a treatment that is working and is expected to continue to be effective indefinitely should be withheld because a doctor's appointment didn't happen during the scheduled window one month, any more than my glasses should stop working because I didn't see my opthalmologist this year. Freedom to choose suboptimal outcomes is not a bad thing.
- candiddevmike 2y agoNo device should require a subscription
- worik 2y agoOwn a Tesla? Noone really does