this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
2838 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's pretty simple. Medical devices should have certain expectations for time and support. This happens in other industries all the time. Product support has to be guaranteed. And if you can't guarantee product support, make your software open source. That's not a law, just a "I'm not an asshole" placeholder. Open source schematics and software won't fix everything, but it shows good faith effort to help people fucking not go blind.
What's so messed up to me is that the implants I design, inactive pieces of metal, are required to be operable for the life of our longest living patient PLUS 20 YEARS. Yet somehow as soon as electronics are involved they can get away with this. How long until pacemakers or insulin pumps need a license to continue functioning?
This is why I have an issue with privatized medicine.
I agree with your sentiment, and maybe this is a minor quibble, but I don't see how complex electronic implants can be designed to function on the same timelines as "inactive pieces of metal".
I do think that your bashing of privatized medicine is on the right track though. There needs to be some sort of regulatory framework, and possibly public funding, to maintain warranty and replacement stockpiles for implants that are too dangerous, or complex to remove, or unique in the medical niche they fill.
However, I'm just spitballing out of my ass and depth here, so there's a real possibility that everything I just said is nonviable, or otherwise idiotic.
Considering the already existing issues with inactive implants, maybe electronics shouldn’t be allowed in implants until they can demonstrate reliability.
if someone is willing to pay $150k to see blurry grey dots I don't see how it's anyone's business but there's to ban that.
This is a pretty wild take you're making here. You're essentially telling anyone who has received a deep-brain implant for Parkinson's to go kick rocks.
Just a thought, but with deep brain implants aren't the electronics separate from the electrodes that actually go in the brain? That would make them a little more accessible without needing to do brain surgery every time.
Maybe that's the middle ground for this situation at this moment in time: make the sensors/electrodes/static components needed for the health issue follow the same life+20 years and separate the processing pieces into a container that could still be surgically stored under the skin, but more easily accessed for maintenance, repair, replacement.
Theoretically, this could allow 3rd parties to come in and leverage existing installations by leaving the lifetime components in place and replacing the processing unit.
This could be the beginning of human device engineering standards similar to what IEEE does for computers and technology.