[glorioushubris]

This is fascinating and harrowing, but I wish it contained more detail on why the devices were removed, particularly in Rita Leggett's case. The company that made her still-functioning device no longer existed, and trial participants were "advised to have their implants removed." But then she subsequently "tried to negotiate with the company?" And was then somehow compelled to have the device removed despite not wanting to--presumably due to some unarticulated consequence of not doing so; I don't think any surgeon would perform an operation like that without the patient consenting to it. I'd like to better understand how she was compelled to consent to the removal of something she "would have done anything" to keep. That seems like a relevant facet of the discussion of medical ethics.

[LocalH]

My guess is that it was structured such that the company still owned the implant, rather than the person in whom it was implanted.

[glorioushubris]

Yeah, but if you own something that’s in my brain, I can imagine you legally forcing me to pay you for it, but I can’t imagine any court in the world forcing me to let you cut my head open.

[infoseek12]

I think the reason is explained by this quote:

“Companies should have insurance that covers the maintenance of devices should volunteers need to keep them beyond the end of a clinical trial”

I don’t think she was “forced” to have it surgically removed but this kind of complex implant probably requires ongoing maintenance in order to be operated safely. Since the company that made it went out of business there isn’t anyone around to provide the extremely specialized maintenance which is required.

It’s a sad situation but also a complex one. I imagine providing long-term support for this kind of medical device is non-trivial.