• antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nobody is making you get a brain chip. Noland did the research, talked about it with his family, and wanted to proceed in spite of the fully disclosed risks. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right - if you want to do something or have something done to your body it’s not the governments place to stop you. Safeguards are necessary, and they do exist. You don’t need laws to make sure everybody has the same risk tolerance as you. I can’t fully imagine what it would be like to have no use of my body and no hope of recovery. But I wouldn’t want people like you or me who aren’t in my shoes deciding what I can and can’t do. Honestly if he wanted to have a lethal injection, I believe he should be allowed to make that decision, but he can’t. I’m happy he was able to make some kind of decision, and regain some autonomy, if only temporarily, and not just be a vegetable head in a bed for the rest of his life.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Again, the person’s desperation is a key here, this technology is targeted at people who are potentially willing to try anything even if it comes with risk.

      That isn’t the same sort of consent I have as someone who isn’t paralyzed and just think it’d be cool to control my garage door with my brain or something. I’m not under the same pressure.

      If I mix a bunch of laundry chemicals and bill it as a miracle cure for cancer, and then target vulnerable people willing to try anything because they are stage 4, that doesn’t excuse me of my reckless disregard for safety or to use those people as experiments.

      Musk’s company wants to get this tech into human beings as quickly as possible even if it’s underdeveloped and potentially unsafe because Musk’s priority is not really about helping people.

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Are you suggesting that the FDA gave Neuralink special treatment in the approval process? Or are you suggesting that the government should specifically shut down anything Musk tries to do, like SpaceX?

        • retrospectology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That or Musk’s org lied, misrepresented their progress or found loop holes in the regulation process, yes.

          It’s pretty obvious from its immediate failure that it was not ready.

          • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t think it’s obvious at all. This is a sample size of one, and it is still working after 3 months.

            Globally, a staggering 310 million major surgeries are performed each year; around 40 to 50 million in USA and 20 million in Europe. It is estimated that 1–4% of these patients will die, up to 15% will have serious postoperative morbidity, and 5–15% will be readmitted within 30 days. An annual global mortality of around 8 million patients places major surgery comparable with the leading causes of death from cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer and injury. If surgical complications were classified as a pandemic, like HIV/AIDS or coronavirus (COVID-19), developed countries would work together and devise an immediate action plan and allocate resources to address it.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388795/

            Implants are rejected by the immune system. Stents fail. Hip and joint replacements fail. Does that mean we shouldn’t do them?