4 ms·

> Smartphones provide a very easy and reliable way to have people interface with such devices. I deeply disagree with you and think this encourages reckless

> Smartphones provide a very easy and reliable way to have people interface with such devices. I deeply disagree with you and think this encourages reckless engineering and is a dangerous attitude to take. Ease of use and reliability have nothing to do with each other. One should not be used as a cover for defects in the other. You may enjoy "ease of use". But smartphones are extraordinarily complex devices that concentrate far too much functionality and risk in one place without safeguards. They come literally "compromised out of the box" with poor decoupling between subsystems like RF, memory and processors.

lenerdenator 2y ago
Counterpoint: If a medical device is not easy to use, you risk the patient not using it as a part of their therapy, or maybe even using it wrong to disastrous effects. The alternative to a smartphone connecting with one of these devices is likely a proprietary interface that's worse in every measurable way, and could be just as compromised, if not more.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  Good point. So, given two equally horrific options which can lead to the tragic death of the patient, surely the correct course would be; Don't do either. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. We are not compelled by any natural law to add gratuitous digital technology to problems which are only made worse by it.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    If patients didn't think this added something to their lives and ability to manage insulin-dependent diabetes, they wouldn't be paying far out the ass to get them either in direct costs or through insurance premiums. That's not what people do. I'm sure plenty of patients would much rather do anything else with the money. I know I would with the money I spend on chronic health problems. Again, completely possible to do this right, but you have to be willing to put the resources into it.

lenerdenator 2y ago

Counterpoint: If a medical device is not easy to use, you risk the patient not using it as a part of their therapy, or maybe even using it wrong to disastrous effects. The alternative to a smartphone connecting with one of these devices is likely a proprietary interface that's worse in every measurable way, and could be just as compromised, if not more.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
Good point. So, given two equally horrific options which can lead to the tragic death of the patient, surely the correct course would be; Don't do either. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. We are not compelled by any natural law to add gratuitous digital technology to problems which are only made worse by it.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  If patients didn't think this added something to their lives and ability to manage insulin-dependent diabetes, they wouldn't be paying far out the ass to get them either in direct costs or through insurance premiums. That's not what people do. I'm sure plenty of patients would much rather do anything else with the money. I know I would with the money I spend on chronic health problems. Again, completely possible to do this right, but you have to be willing to put the resources into it.