Exactly! The lack of a back up plan is inexcusable. In situations like this, they should have the tester sign some sort of release to keep the implant instead of destroying it. Although the developers weren't dead so maybe they have it at a different company for continuing research? It was different with the amputee who developed an infection; I can understand removal in that instance. But someone who finally has a life just to have it taken away is just not okay.
This is so awful. To be forced to remove something that has been implanted and has changed your life to this extent has to be extremely traumatic (and was, per the article). The ethics of such trials really need to be ironed out and protections put in place.
Yeah. It read to me like it was the equivalent of part of her body to her, not to mention I can’t imagine having to go back to a debilitating disability after you’ve found something that works so well.
I also wish I had a better understanding of exactly why it had to come out. Like, I know the company was out of money, but if it’s already in and produced, why does it need to be removed? If there is a software dependency, is there no way to run it locally to avoid server costs? It seems extremely irresponsible not to have a backup plan for this situation that isn’t just “let me perform invasive surgery to make your life worse”.
And this is why we should always make sure important research is public domain/public owned. We can't depend on the comes and goes of a private owned company.
Add comment