A Boring Dystopia

9785 readers

317 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

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--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

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

522

Doctors Remove Woman’s Brain Implant Against Her Will (futurism.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MattW03@lemmy.ca to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 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 (2 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.

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

I think the difference is likely that this is a trial. The woman likely didn't pay for it, and they didn't want her to because they don't want anyone owning their tech while it's being developed.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

I mean yes but you also have to consider the face of it.

This whole thing is basically them saying sorry, we didn't make 800 million dollars so we're going to cut your head open and throw away what we find in there.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I don't give a shit what the company wants or think it's entitled to; the device was implanted inside a human body. That means the human it's implanted in owns it, and fuck any psychopath who claims it could ever be otherwise!

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not what regulatory capture means. Regulatory capture is when the industry being regulated basically owns the agency writing and enforcing the regulation. Nothing they don't want regulated gets regulated and they can use regulation to prevent new competitors. How the FAA in the US defers to airlines and airplane manufacturers is often used as an example.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so I used the wrong phrase but I think we all agree about the spirit of what I was attempting to communicate, right?

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah.