• Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, we should protect against that too by requiring a certain level of service. But at the very least they need to own the device and have the right to leave the device in, even if it would fail or potentially cause them harm. I pointed that out because it sounds like they wanted to leave it in and not listen to the doctors advice to remove it, but could not for some reason. The only reason I can imagine would involve someone paying for the surgery to remove it against her will is one in which she does not own the device and the alternative is being burdened with a massive debt to pay off the device.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you require a certain level of service when the company that made it goes out of business? Or when employees with essential knowledge leave the company? I’ve been working in software for a long time, and everywhere I’ve worked, losing someone knowledgeable about a product is a big blow to future development because a lot of important knowledge is only in their head, leaving future maintainers to do a lot of reverse engineering. Requiring documentation wouldn’t work because any company that had strict enough requirements would have a very hard time hiring engineers willing to spend so much time documenting every little thing.

      • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You require them legally to budget and plan these things and give them harsh penalties if they fail. That they need to set aside money in a way that it can’t be touched if they go under. You’ll likely need to hire teams at the government to help fill gaps and coordinate.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you have any idea how much money you’re talking about. The fact that you’re proposing it in the context of an experimental device that was probably never even marketed is just deranged. We’d still be stuck with 1950s-level technology if you had your way because nobody could afford to develop any new products that can’t be made in a basic machine shop.

            • FlowVoid
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The whole point of a clinical trial is to enroll volunteers who are willing to undergo a treatment that might not work at all and might not be available in the future even if it does work. Not only that, but you might expect to get a potential cure and end up with only a sugar pill.

              If you think any of that is unreasonable, then don’t enroll in a clinical trial.