A woman whose epilepsy was greatly improved by an experimental brain implant was devastated when, just two years after getting it, she was forced to have it removed due to the company that made it going bankrupt.

As the MIT Technology Review reports, an Australian woman named Rita Leggett who received an experimental seizure-tracking brain-computer interface (BCI) implant from the now-defunct company Neuravista in 2010 has become a stark example not only of the ways neurotech can help people, but also of the trauma of losing access to them when experiments end or companies go under.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
193 points

Oh great so even physical ownership doesn’t even mean you own something anymore

permalink
report
reply
95 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
117 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

All of their code and specs should be required to be put into escrow in case they go out of business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Liability could be easily signed away by the patient if she felt that leaving it was a better option. And she/the family can’t sue if the removal makes things worse now, because the company won’t exist. Seems leaving it in was a better risk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

I can’t believe they did a surgery on her without already giving her this option. This is basic bodily autonomy human rights stuff, doctors are not going to do any surgery on a human being because a third party asked them to, and the patient didn’t consent. It’s not something that happens outside of Nazi Germany, with exceptions only in the case where a person’s advance directives are activated; or they are completely incapacitated with no AD.

I suspect they told her the risk of the device killing her or making her life worse was either extremely high, or impossible to judge, and she made the decision on her own to get rid of it. To be clear this is a travesty, and the people running the responsible company should face severe consequences, but I think we’re going off the deep end if anyone believes she was not given an option in this matter. Doctors will straight up leave stuff in you that will kill you if they can’t obtain your consent to fix it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The BEST timeline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

A Boring Dystopia

!aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

Create post

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

–Be a Decent Human Being

–Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

–Posts must have something to do with the topic

–Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

–No NSFW content

–Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

Community stats

  • 6K

    Monthly active users

  • 955

    Posts

  • 30K

    Comments

Community moderators