this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
519 points (95.1% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9776 readers
400 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.ee 193 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] dono@lemmy.world 97 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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 116 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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 51 points 3 months 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 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doing stuff that makes peoples lives better with no short-term financial incentive? Sounds like a mission for public-funded institutions :)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

The BEST timeline.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months 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.

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 126 points 3 months ago (7 children)

As a nurse I find it very problematic that they could force her to have brain surgery to retrieve their property.

It might be understandable that they turn it off or stopp support, if it was experimental and the device didn't pass the necessary aprovals.

But forcing her to have an invasive procedure on her brain with so many dangerous risks. This should be illegal.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Yeah theres a lot here that stinks, I'm going to have to find more sources on it.

This clearly violates informed consent, and a whole bunch of study related laws, and laws involving patient care and risks of invasive procedure.

She had to agree to the surgery to remove it at some point, and it could not have been in informed consent documentation, because she could have revoked that agreement before the surgery.

I doubt this story. I really doubt this.

However, I don't know shit about fuck about Australian law.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 months ago

One relevant detail is that this was not a self contained device, it was for monitoring likelihood of seizures and had an external wireless interface. So my guess (this is pure speculation) on what happened is, the company owned the monitoring device, and the signals from the in-brain device were proprietary and encrypted. They couldn't force her to have surgery but they could take back the external interface which was their property, and without that the in-brain device did nothing. Then the patient agreed to surgery because there was no further benefit to keeping it in her head and probably greater health risks to doing so.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

An awful lot of EULAs (software or otherwise) include odious clauses or terms easily misused. I daresay even most, since US and international contract law is heavily biased towards industrial corporations being permitted to include and enforce such terms.

Often, court cases are about arguing that a clause in question is, in fact, odious and unenforceable without causing undue suffering.

If the patient dies or suffers permanent health effects from the extraction surgery, I anticipate a wrongful death lawsuit may well follow.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 109 points 3 months ago (2 children)

She and her husband attempted to fight the demand, attempting to buy the implant outright...

It was compulsory brain surgery for a repo.

In other words the company interests superceded the patient's

This is the sort of inciting incident that triggers cyberpunk dystopian adventures that conclude in a blaze of electrical grid collapses, warehouse explosions and mass spiritual awakening. Then the protagonist moves to Amsterdam.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It was compulsory brain surgery for a repo. ... This is the sort of inciting incident that triggers cyberpunk dystopian adventures

Sure is.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That was my first thought as well. Glad to see it posted, because it’s sort of a niche cult classic.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I still can't believe how good it is.

Paris Hilton is a good actress in this film.

Fuckin' wild.

[–] Bimfred@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fingers crossed this woman doesn't end up with a Zydrate addiction. It comes in a little glass vial, you know.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 93 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I feel like maybe research on medical implants like this should be done by the state.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago

At least, when the company goes defunct, they should be forced to sell it to a company that's required to maintain the upkeep for products using the IP they bought or the government should eminent domain

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So should a lot of research, for public benefit. Medical absolutely, space absolutely.

The problem with that model is no one acquires immoral levels of wealth, which means those that set policy don't get as large of bribes.

And as a species, our actions have spoken on no uncertain terms, we'd literally rather destroy our only habitat and ourselves then let go of the dream of living like modern Pharoahs on the backs of others.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

You're not wrong, and I hate that about your comment.

Take your upvote and go.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 43 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I'm kind of in that boat. I mean not really, and it's not life-changing like it is for the lady, but it's the same sort of issue.

I have implants inside of me. They're RFID and NFC transponders of various kind made by Dangerous Things. They're not essential to my life in the sense that I could very well do without them, but they're immensely useful and handy on a day-to-day basis.

One of them is a payment implant. The implant was made in 2020 and is not in fact allowed by Mastercard - meaning if the payment processor figures out it's under my skin, they'll strike it off the EMVCo network and I'll lose the ability to make payments with my hand. It expires in 2029, and I already know after that date that there probably won't be a replacement available. So I will lose that ability in 2029.

And you know what? It really does feel like a loss: this is my second payment implant because the first one failed a year in, and that's what it felt like. Similarly, I have other implants that I use all the time to open doors and authenticate with online services, and when those fail (and some of them did, I had to have them replaced), it does feel like losing a bodily function too.

I'm an amputee, so I know what it feels like to lose bits of myself, and when one of my implant fails, it feels very similar. Not the same and not as terrible of course, but it's the same kind of feeling: you feel less yourself and less able than you used to be.

The other question that arises is whether implants become part of your body, and whether anybody is legally allowed to take them away from you. In other words, nobody is legally allowed to remove your heart or your spleen without your consent, but are implants treated the same way?

Like for example, suppose I go to court and a judge reckons my cryptographic implant was used to encrypt evidence on my computer: can the judge order it removed from my body against my will to send it to a forensic lab? I mean after all, it's now part of my body and providing me with a new bodily ability of sorts: it could be argued that removing my implant can be construed as disabling me - which, as I said, really does feel a bit like that.

This has never come up in court, and I'm an honest, nice guy so I won't be the one breaking that particular ground. But the question is intriguing.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Liar. You're not a dullard at all.

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 11 points 3 months ago

This is a fascinating perspective, thanks for sharing your experience. It makes me really happy to hear first hand how this new technology does improve quality of life for people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

On the bright side, she no longer has Johnny Silverhand living in her head and complaining about all her decisions.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

The fun thing is that half the time Johnny complains, you gain approval with him anyway. He may bitch about you stopping to save random folks and talk about how it won't actually change anything, but he still approves deep down. He also approves if you call him on his bullshit, which is a nice change from most RPGs requiring you to be absurdly supportive of your party's awful decisions to top off that approval meter.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cexcells@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Forced? What are the logistics there, what if she runs, and forcefully refuses? Are they going to literally get ppl to hunt her down and drag her to the operation room?

[–] SacrificedBeans@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Even worse. They would sue the crap out of her.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The article isn't clear on if they didn't have enough money to buy it or if the company refused for liability and safety reasons.

Regardless, we really need stringent laws about this. Anything needing surgery should irrevocably become yours, both hardware and software wise, and the company should be setting up trusts for maintenance in case of bankruptcy.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 7 points 3 months ago (6 children)

For instance if your hip implant manufacturer went out of business you wouldn't expect them to come take your hip.

What should have happened it would have been regulatory capture where when they went out of business the government should have stepped in and taken their source code and made it public domain.

I'm sure some enterprising people would have been glad to host whatever servers were needed to keep this woman's seizures from working and her brain implant operational.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Silverseren@fedia.io 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So the government can force you to go into surgery to remove something from your brain now?

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

It's not the government though. It looks like the company.

This was a trial and the implant likely required to communicate with their servers and without them it wasn't able to work.

The real issue is that probably anything that's installed in humans needs to have schematics and software made public domain when company goes out of business so someone else could maintain it to avoid these issues.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We need orphan technology program like for orphan drugs. I can't imagine it would be very costly to keep this one woman's device running, but it does take someone somewhere being responsible for it.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I expect it would in fact be hugely expensive to keep the woman's implant going: anything medical is even more expensive that aeronautical stuff. And also, who bears responsibility when the company tanks and the woman has an issue with her implant?

But here's what I think: innovative startups that want to run tests of experimental implants (looking at you Elon) should be legally required to set money aside to support the test subjects' implanted hardware until the end of their natural life or until the implant fails, whichever comes first, if the company tanks.

The money should pay for a skeletal crew of the original engineers working for a government-owned company set up and dedicated solely to that support after the original company disappears, and it should pay for the test subjects' medical expenses related to their implants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Anyone remember repo men? Getting a bit tired of fiction becoming reality...

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Kinda similarly, my brother was taking a drug (interferon) for treatment of a rare cancer that not many people need anymore (a better drug replaced the main use case the drug was developed for, which is different from my brother’s use case). The manufacturer discontinued the drug and noone makes it anymore so my brother and others who were relying on it simply lost access. I never knew this could happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Repo man isn't fiction.

load more comments
view more: next ›