The human cost of neurotechnology failure
1–10 of 160 posts
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#2I wonder if closing a company should require some kind of process similar to bankruptcy. Then have an external party check to see impacted parties of the closure and provide some form of relief to stakeholders. In the case presented here maybe schematics for the device and proprietary software would be made available in perpetuity without support or code.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#3>People using the stimulator and their physicians could no longer access the proprietary software needed to recalibrate the device and maintain its effectiveness
Devastating that there is not a higher awareness of this at the outset. Perhaps, along with other suggestions in this thread, it should be obligatory to pair any program with a university to ensure sharing & continuation of knowledge.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#4There should be something similar to the FDIC for medical device manufacturers. If you're a customer of a bank and the bank goes under, the FDIC will step in to ensure continuity of operations and youre eventually taken up by another bank that buys the assets.
For a company that makes medical devices, part of the bankrupcy process should be a 3rd party company coming in and taking over support and maintenance of the devices. Although this would be very challenging, one of the things that makes it possible with banks is at a high level,the business is the same. With medical devices it would be much much more difficult to find a suitable company to come in and take over operations.
At the very least this story is why we need Right to Repair laws. If not having another company step in to takeover support, at least make the device such that it can be repaired by an independent party
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#5I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company.
Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.
Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest — if there was no guarentee of patches and maintenance?
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#6>People using the stimulator and their physicians could no longer access the proprietary software needed to recalibrate the device and maintain its effectiveness Devastating that there is not a higher awareness of this at the outset. Perhaps, along with other suggestions in this thread, it should be obligatory to pair any program with a university to ensure sharing & continuation of knowledge.
Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
> Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported
It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#7Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that.
These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a blind eye to the big picture and the long term. Such a mindset is not really good for genuinely addressing health issues.
In response to the dead reply to me (that I don't plan to vouch for): No, I don't assume all med tech is made in bad faith.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#8>People using the stimulator and their physicians could no longer access the proprietary software needed to recalibrate the device and maintain its effectiveness Devastating that there is not a higher awareness of this at the outset. Perhaps, along with other suggestions in this thread, it should be obligatory to pair any program with a university to ensure sharing & continuation of knowledge.
Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete > Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.
I can't see a requirement to be FOSS working due to those who fund such companies expect to have dividends, even universities. But at least if it's published, and with stronger right to repair laws, there is some chance rather than none.
Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure
#9Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…
I'd expect a comment like this on Facebook, not here.
Yours is a "Natural human" take that assumes every piece of medical tech was made in bad faith. How sad and cynical and absolutely untrue.
>Pain is information.
It can be NULL information, too. or WRONG information. Dude was having cluster headaches for 8 hours a day. Do you have a cure for cluster headaches? Are you able to interpret this "Information"? How arrogant!
If they had a cure or a magic wand it would have been done by now.