Implantable tech, especially that used to treat medical conditions or alleviate the difficulties associated with disability - how concerned should we be about situations such as that with Second Sight? People with vision loss who had implantable devices placed in their retinas now cannot get spare parts or repairs and might now lose what they'd gained. They may need surgery to remove the redundant devices and obviously all surgery carries risk. This has been brought about by the financial failure of the company behind the implants.
Whilst also something of an issue for other kinds of medical tech, surely implanted/integrated tech becoming unrepairable or redundant or dangerous is the greatest concern? At least if your techie wheelchair can't be repaired, it should be possible to acquire an alternative (though it might not be as good or might be expensive). Redundant prosthetics can similarly be replaced, albeit possibly with something less functional.
With the recent news of novel implantable spinal cord tech, is it time for better regulation of implantable medical devices? Medical devices as a whole are not regulated anywhere near as stringently as pharmaceuticals but is that now erroneous because of the fact medical devices can now become permanent part of the human body (whereas in the past, such devices tended to be "worn" rather than completely integrated into the body, especially key parts such as eyes, central nervous system etc).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60416058 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *avie65Man
over a year ago
In the west. |
I know it's not perfect but should the companies that develop these new medical implants be backed by government or work in partnership with large multi-nationals in order to avoid going bust.
Situation  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
The vets are worth listening to as dogs and cats don't go on FB and read fake news.
Seriously, pet ID chips work, as do pace makers.
So as long as the Microsoft, Android and Apple don't get involved we should be OK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Implantable tech, especially that used to treat medical conditions or alleviate the difficulties associated with disability - how concerned should we be about situations such as that with Second Sight? People with vision loss who had implantable devices placed in their retinas now cannot get spare parts or repairs and might now lose what they'd gained. They may need surgery to remove the redundant devices and obviously all surgery carries risk. This has been brought about by the financial failure of the company behind the implants.
Whilst also something of an issue for other kinds of medical tech, surely implanted/integrated tech becoming unrepairable or redundant or dangerous is the greatest concern? At least if your techie wheelchair can't be repaired, it should be possible to acquire an alternative (though it might not be as good or might be expensive). Redundant prosthetics can similarly be replaced, albeit possibly with something less functional.
With the recent news of novel implantable spinal cord tech, is it time for better regulation of implantable medical devices? Medical devices as a whole are not regulated anywhere near as stringently as pharmaceuticals but is that now erroneous because of the fact medical devices can now become permanent part of the human body (whereas in the past, such devices tended to be "worn" rather than completely integrated into the body, especially key parts such as eyes, central nervous system etc).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60416058"
Perhaps for certain devices then the majority of the tech should be externally mounted.
With your example of the photoreceptor chips helping the blind “see”, then could the connection to the optic nerve be linked to an external interface that an external “camera” could connect to?
If you’ve seen Star Trek TNG, you’ll get what I mean |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know it's not perfect but should the companies that develop these new medical implants be backed by government or work in partnership with large multi-nationals in order to avoid going bust.
Situation "
I certainly thing there should be some regulation around someone having to pick up the pieces if a tech company disappears/goes bust.
Devil's advocate - if innovative small start ups are effectively ruled out or we rely only on big multinationals (or the NHS), that will stifle new development, potentially.
The NHS more than likely doesn't have the capabilities to service these sorts of devices but, in a chicken and egg situation, such new tech won't ever become available or be affordable on the NHS without this sort of small scale innovation.
You have to break eggs to make omelette - is it okay that a few "eggs" are in fact people's eyes and spinal cords?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60416058
Perhaps for certain devices then the majority of the tech should be externally mounted.
With your example of the photoreceptor chips helping the blind “see”, then could the connection to the optic nerve be linked to an external interface that an external “camera” could connect to?
If you’ve seen Star Trek TNG, you’ll get what I mean "
Most of the tech for this retinal implant is worn externally, but the minute you have to connect something to the nervous system, you have to physically implant something into the person.
Imagine you are someone who has managed to a specific disability through use of an implantable devices to permit you to work, for example? Or you chose to have children, thinking it'd be easier with less impact from your disability? You were promised ongoing repairs, upgrades and improvements over time, which swayed your decision to go ahead with the implant of whatever it is. Then it's taken away from you. It could quite literally destroy someone's life, in that sort of scenario. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As for implants going wrong, anyone remember the dodgy boob implants that were filled with the wrong filler?"
This is another example, yes. As is the mesh used in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in women. All permitted under the less stringent medical device regulations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *avie65Man
over a year ago
In the west. |
"I know it's not perfect but should the companies that develop these new medical implants be backed by government or work in partnership with large multi-nationals in order to avoid going bust.
Situation
I certainly thing there should be some regulation around someone having to pick up the pieces if a tech company disappears/goes bust.
Devil's advocate - if innovative small start ups are effectively ruled out or we rely only on big multinationals (or the NHS), that will stifle new development, potentially.
The NHS more than likely doesn't have the capabilities to service these sorts of devices but, in a chicken and egg situation, such new tech won't ever become available or be affordable on the NHS without this sort of small scale innovation.
You have to break eggs to make omelette - is it okay that a few "eggs" are in fact people's eyes and spinal cords? "
Doh it should have been citation . My spelling went to...there.
I get what you mean about the multi-nationals. Could the smaller tech companies work in tandem with the NHS to develop innovative medical devices? After all they will be one of the main customers and it may lead to lower prices/costs for the NHS.
No we shouldn't break eggs to get to a certain place. We can send spacecraft out to discover new stars and galaxies so surely we have the technology and capabilities to create these new devices without endangering someone's health or quality of life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60416058
Perhaps for certain devices then the majority of the tech should be externally mounted.
With your example of the photoreceptor chips helping the blind “see”, then could the connection to the optic nerve be linked to an external interface that an external “camera” could connect to?
If you’ve seen Star Trek TNG, you’ll get what I mean
Most of the tech for this retinal implant is worn externally, but the minute you have to connect something to the nervous system, you have to physically implant something into the person.
Imagine you are someone who has managed to a specific disability through use of an implantable devices to permit you to work, for example? Or you chose to have children, thinking it'd be easier with less impact from your disability? You were promised ongoing repairs, upgrades and improvements over time, which swayed your decision to go ahead with the implant of whatever it is. Then it's taken away from you. It could quite literally destroy someone's life, in that sort of scenario."
It's bad enough waiting for a cataract operation and that's a dumb lense swap. Imagine having a zoom lens in the eye, that's pure $6 Million dollar man territory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
