after pharmaceutical trial, if the new compound works, sometimes you have option to continue treatment. here “continuation of treatment” would be just leaving device in place, you don’t have to supply new stuff. the real problem becomes maintenance when there’s no one to do it. yes, it’s unsupported, but it works, as long as it works - maybe there should be a legal option for patient to leave it be in such case
“who should come up with the money” is an issue that comes up even with post-trial therapy using normal boring small molecule drugs (much cheaper per patient)
How did you come to be convinced that the system works without third-party integration and maintenance? What happens if it stops working? What about security? Should we provide liability guarantees to corporations which manufacture implants just to preserve the option of retrading in cases that make us sad?
Of course money is always an issue. Scarcity is always an issue. It’s more of an issue at larger scale and with more complex and less understood technology. Ignoring it to chase unsustainable ideals is how we end up with unaffordable health systems. Any position that ignores physical limitations is untenable, and any government that violates legal contracts for subjective reasons is corrupt.
after pharmaceutical trial, if the new compound works, sometimes you have option to continue treatment. here “continuation of treatment” would be just leaving device in place, you don’t have to supply new stuff. the real problem becomes maintenance when there’s no one to do it. yes, it’s unsupported, but it works, as long as it works - maybe there should be a legal option for patient to leave it be in such case
“who should come up with the money” is an issue that comes up even with post-trial therapy using normal boring small molecule drugs (much cheaper per patient)
How did you come to be convinced that the system works without third-party integration and maintenance? What happens if it stops working? What about security? Should we provide liability guarantees to corporations which manufacture implants just to preserve the option of retrading in cases that make us sad?
Of course money is always an issue. Scarcity is always an issue. It’s more of an issue at larger scale and with more complex and less understood technology. Ignoring it to chase unsustainable ideals is how we end up with unaffordable health systems. Any position that ignores physical limitations is untenable, and any government that violates legal contracts for subjective reasons is corrupt.
This is why companies that make medical devices should be legally required to open source their code and publish it