I am guessing/hoping that the device needed maintenance and since nobody can maintain it, it’s removed for safety reasons. I think They wouldn’t perform surgery without such a safety need.
Comment on Doctors Remove Woman’s Brain Implant Against Her Will
TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Oh great so even physical ownership doesn’t even mean you own something anymore
Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
athairmor@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sounds like she was in a trial so probably didn’t pay for it and doesn’t own it.
It’s still kind of fucked up that she has to have surgery to remove it but she probably agreed to these terms before it was installed.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The BEST timeline.
dono@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
As much as I share this sentiment in general, in this case its probably more likely that this has something to with liability if something goes wrong with the implant. And I would bet the company never released the schematics and code so that aint helpin.
Could prob be solved if implants would be required to be open source so that third party servicing could happen.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
Companies that aren’t actively using their IP should be forced to license it to someone who will, or put it in the public domain.
brianary@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
All of their code and specs should be required to be put into escrow in case they go out of business.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
That doesn’t seem like the best idea with expiramental implants. I doubt anyone would want to take on the liability for some defunct company’s implant because there’s no upside for them to do so and a lot of downsides.
gaael@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Doing stuff that makes peoples lives better with no short-term financial incentive? Sounds like a mission for public-funded institutions :)
pingveno@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
As part of unwinding a company that is going out of business, they usually do sell off their IP. That doesn’t mean that anyone will continue this particular experiment.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
The same rule applies to whenever they sell the IP to. Whoever buys the IP should be legally obligated to continue the experiment as a condition of buying it. The alternative—putting the IP in the public domain—doesn’t do a lot for people who need active, ongoing support for a medical device, implanted in their body. I’d make a separate, stricter rule for that case. I don’t have a clear idea what that rule should be, though, because we can’t require a medical experiment to continue indefinitely if we want anyone to develop new medical devices.