Sure, updating patients rights would help but how fucked is it that our system allows this by default in the first placd?

  • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idea that because it’s not flesh and blood, it’s not a vital organ, seems to becoming increasingly outdated as it was clear that this woman’s life was transformed in a way that enabled her to be more “normal” (there’s probably a much nicer way to say that but I’m blanking.)

    Removing it should be treated the same as ripping a prosthetic limb away from a patient.

    • half@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The issue isn’t the composition of the object but rather property and contract. The prosthetic limb comparison isn’t bad in my opinion, except this would be an experimental prosthetic limb that patients agreed to test with full knowledge and consent that it could be removed without their permission.

      Again, I would hate to be in that position, but if I agreed to it, I understand my legal options would be limited. Again, this isn’t a company ruining someone’s life over a little money, this is a corporation unable to continue operating. Again, please consider the fact that a corporation which can treat epilepsy went backrupt because it couldn’t afford to do business in the regulatory environment of the health industry. I don’t understand how adding more subjective laws with hand-waved economic foundations is supposed to help this situation.