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.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    An awful lot of EULAs (software or otherwise) include odious clauses or terms easily misused. I daresay even most, since US and international contract law is heavily biased towards industrial corporations being permitted to include and enforce such terms.

    Often, court cases are about arguing that a clause in question is, in fact, odious and unenforceable without causing undue suffering.

    If the patient dies or suffers permanent health effects from the extraction surgery, I anticipate a wrongful death lawsuit may well follow.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Such EULAs are often pointless in Australia, and she is Australian, as it is impossible for an Australian to sign away any of their rights.