That’s the first thing I said when this was first posted, all those people who had the implants that enabled sight are left with no parts and no support since the company went under.
There should be laws in place stating these companies will provide support and parts for the entire life of the users. Anything less is criminal.
If nothing else, mandate the opening of the standards must coincide with the end of support. I realize it would mean a service blackout while another company tries to pick them up, but it would be a lot better than nothing and it doesn’t hit the bottom line if a company operating now quite so much which would make it more palatable.
Doesn’t help if no one picks up the ball on manufacturing spare parts. Manufacturing medical devices is really expensive, even more so when you have to do small batches of niche hardware, and requires fairly special manufacturing capabilities so it’s not easily done by anyone.
Yes. The licensing approval for things like this need to include a plan for continued support if/when the company goes belly up. That would have to include the govt agreeing to pick up the slack, which would require some kind of trust fund for each individual implant to cover a lifetime of maintenance. Or, you know, nationalisation. But this is the world we live in … so even the most basic solution won’t happen because it might get in the way of some rich fuckers turning people into money.
Be careful what you ask for and how any laws are written. I knew a guy who became a paraplegic after a helicopter accident. He actually walked away from the accident but months/years later damage to his lower spine caused a blood clot that rendered him largely unable to use his legs.
He was wheelchair-bound when I met him, but one day a few years down the line I walked into a room to find him standing & walking. He told me he had even been able to climb a ladder to replace a light bulb. He’d been on a medical trial that was clearly promising. Unfortunately side effects piled up, he had to stop the trial, and he again ended up in a wheelchair.
Granted this wasn’t the same as a medical implant trial, but if strict laws are enacted that required companies to support medical devices, drugs, etc. then I’d be very afraid of the impact it would have on research and trials like these. No company is going to want to risk lawsuits, etc. so they’ll just stop innovating, or at least cut back a huge amount.
I work as a disability support worker, I have clients in wheelchairs and traveled the world with them doing sport. I am fully aware of what cutting edge tech can do to better lives, and I am even more aware of what the effects of not having access are.
That said, your argument is nonsense. These companies have more money than they know what to do with, and the trials of these products in humans are intentionally small. They have an obligation to do no harm, and that includes supporting their patients til the end of life.
If that requires slower trials, or special insurance the company pays to cover these things, or careful standardization so the torch can be passed on should the company go under, so be it.
The people who got the ocular implants are going blind again one by one because the company that gave them vision went under. They cannot get support or parts.
Can you imagine having your sight and therefore independence again, only to have the cold fear every night that you’ll wake up and your implant won’t be working?
Is this perhaps a different thing than the one that had 2 patients with basically VR glasses similar to Geordi from Star Trek and the doctor running the research died? IIRC, the company is still around and the patients only lost major support in the fact that the lead researcher, who knew all the ins and outs of the project, died.
This is gonna end up like those people who got an implant to be able to see, and when the company went under, they lost support and their eyesight
That’s the first thing I said when this was first posted, all those people who had the implants that enabled sight are left with no parts and no support since the company went under.
There should be laws in place stating these companies will provide support and parts for the entire life of the users. Anything less is criminal.
Better to mandate open hardware and software standards, so if the company goes under others can make parts or even upgrade the devices.
If nothing else, mandate the opening of the standards must coincide with the end of support. I realize it would mean a service blackout while another company tries to pick them up, but it would be a lot better than nothing and it doesn’t hit the bottom line if a company operating now quite so much which would make it more palatable.
Inching closer to cyberpunk every day
we are already here
I would add open plans and open source so that if anything happens with the company another company can come in and pick up support easily.
How do you go about enforcing this when the company goes under? (Almost like healthcare shouldn’t be private lol)
Open Source required when going bankrupt for all biomedical companies?
Doesn’t help if no one picks up the ball on manufacturing spare parts. Manufacturing medical devices is really expensive, even more so when you have to do small batches of niche hardware, and requires fairly special manufacturing capabilities so it’s not easily done by anyone.
Yes. The licensing approval for things like this need to include a plan for continued support if/when the company goes belly up. That would have to include the govt agreeing to pick up the slack, which would require some kind of trust fund for each individual implant to cover a lifetime of maintenance. Or, you know, nationalisation. But this is the world we live in … so even the most basic solution won’t happen because it might get in the way of some rich fuckers turning people into money.
Be careful what you ask for and how any laws are written. I knew a guy who became a paraplegic after a helicopter accident. He actually walked away from the accident but months/years later damage to his lower spine caused a blood clot that rendered him largely unable to use his legs.
He was wheelchair-bound when I met him, but one day a few years down the line I walked into a room to find him standing & walking. He told me he had even been able to climb a ladder to replace a light bulb. He’d been on a medical trial that was clearly promising. Unfortunately side effects piled up, he had to stop the trial, and he again ended up in a wheelchair.
Granted this wasn’t the same as a medical implant trial, but if strict laws are enacted that required companies to support medical devices, drugs, etc. then I’d be very afraid of the impact it would have on research and trials like these. No company is going to want to risk lawsuits, etc. so they’ll just stop innovating, or at least cut back a huge amount.
I work as a disability support worker, I have clients in wheelchairs and traveled the world with them doing sport. I am fully aware of what cutting edge tech can do to better lives, and I am even more aware of what the effects of not having access are.
That said, your argument is nonsense. These companies have more money than they know what to do with, and the trials of these products in humans are intentionally small. They have an obligation to do no harm, and that includes supporting their patients til the end of life.
If that requires slower trials, or special insurance the company pays to cover these things, or careful standardization so the torch can be passed on should the company go under, so be it.
The people who got the ocular implants are going blind again one by one because the company that gave them vision went under. They cannot get support or parts.
Can you imagine having your sight and therefore independence again, only to have the cold fear every night that you’ll wake up and your implant won’t be working?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
Ah money… is screws you one way or the other.
Is this perhaps a different thing than the one that had 2 patients with basically VR glasses similar to Geordi from Star Trek and the doctor running the research died? IIRC, the company is still around and the patients only lost major support in the fact that the lead researcher, who knew all the ins and outs of the project, died.