[mbakke]

Great article. Real life horror stories of life-critical software gore, with some good news at the end.

It should be illegal to sell software that someones life depends upon without giving the user the right to inspect and modify the code.

[dheera]

I have an ICD (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator) to save my life if my heart stops.

I was also given a proprietary box that sits at home, reads data from it and sends it to my cardiologist over a cellular network, on demand. As part of periodic remote checkups I'm supposed to sit next to it, press the button, which causes it to read data and send any abnormal heart rhythms it detected (via cellular network), whether it treated it (via a shock, in which case I would have known anyway) or whether the abnormal rhythm resolved itself with no treatment (in which case it's worth it that they check out what it picked up). I have to do this about 2-4 times a year.

Every time I hit the button I'm charged $200. Even if there are ZERO events. 90%+ of the time there are zero events.

There is NO interface provided to me where I can read the data directly. There is no way for me to read the device on my own, see zero events, and inform my cardiologist that there are no events and that there is nothing new to diagnose.

I hate this medical system. The device is great for saving my life but I want access to read its data without being charged.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

That's appalling and should be illegal.

I wish more programmers would refuse to contribute to this kind of exploitation.

[subw00f]

This is nuts. Who charges you? Is it the company that makes these devices? What if you want a different “provider”?

[izzydata]

This is giving me feelings similar to that movie repo men where you had to rent life saving organs and they could come repossess them at any time.

[bowsamic]

That is genuinely insane

[7e]

Quality of life critical software should be ensured by FDA certification. Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified.

[leghifla]

In EU (and probably elsewhere), there are strict rules for the stability of power wheelchair. One such rule is "On a incline of x% (x chosen by the manufacturer), pushing for max speed from stop should not lift the front wheels"

To achieve that, the max acceleration must be quite low (software controlled), and the whole experience is sluggish, like trying to steer a car by pulling on rubber bands attached to the wheel.

From the moment I found a way to overcome this, I never went back. I know that I can hurt myself if I do something stupid, but I prefer this hypothetical risk instead of cursing 100 times a day because I cannot move how I want. It has been 10 years and I never got hurt.

I understand that such "high" risk device cannot be sold, but forbidding someone to change this is like inflicting a second handicap on him.

[schiffern]

  > Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified.

The official modifications of that software — in the name of "profit" — are currently risking the patient’s life and health, and therefore should also be illegal by your logic.

Surely you must also support effective (ie harsh/deterrent) prosecution and punishment for these crimes as well, correct?

[Kim_Bruning]

I think this might be a cultural thing.

In some (western) countries, your body is your personal private property, and you have the freedom and ultimate authority over how to use and abuse it, or anything on or in it. (you are still advised to treat your most precious property wisely, obviously)

In other (western) countries/subcommunities people feel that obligations to your community are stronger.

People from these different cultures can get into some pretty hefty discussions when it comes to things like abortion, drugs, euthansia, or -here- implants.

[eikenberry]

So like suicide, drugs and other and other cases where we are denied dominion over ourselves for our own good? IE. Your life and body are not yours, they belong to society and you only get limited access.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Surely the patient should have the right to risk their own life?

[hobs]

To distribute? Sure. To make changes to your out of support cyber-eyeball? Nah.

[zarzavat]

Serious question, what does the FDA know about software quality?

[KevinGlass]

Safetism is a great curse on the world. I cannot disagree with you more.

[throwawaysleep]

So you would prefer it not be developed?

[BobaFloutist]

The software is clearly not the primary product. While there might need to be a carve out or a specific licensing scheme developed to protect them from liability in the case of modified software, I doubt these companies would experience serious financial setbacks if they made their software free and open.

And don't tell me that SaaS is an integral part of the business model for medical device companies. There's no world in which they can't figure out how to turn a profit without charging a monthly fee to use your tens of thousands of dollars eyeball.

[hcks]

This is being downvoted yet there’s a reason why this types of treatments always starts being developed to serve the US market initially