A woman whose epilepsy was greatly improved by an experimental brain implant was devastated when she was forced to have it removed.

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.

    • treadfulEnglish
      18·
      4 months ago

      You can’t just put anything in a contract and say you can’t argue it.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        25·
        4 months ago

        You can. They can do the surgery or they can be sued, it’s a binary choice.

        Morals are a different story but legally no, it’s quite clear and arbitration agreements are pretty literally sections of contracts that say you can’t argue certain things in certain ways.

        • treadfulEnglish
          101·
          4 months ago

          No, you can’t. A contract doesn’t magically supersede law. For instance, you can’t sign a contract saying I can murder you.

          arbitration agreements are pretty literally sections of contracts that say you can’t argue certain things in certain ways.

          And arbitration clauses are not magical statements either. They’re enabled and restricted by law. It’s not even settled law. You have California trying to ban them and lots of courts ruling on various points and exceptions of the law.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            13·
            4 months ago

            No that’s what severance clauses are for. Anything not legal can’t be enforced but the contract minus those sections stands. Similarly she was not forced to have the surgery in any way at all. She has to return the device that she agreed to return, the surgery was optional.

            They sorta are though boss and this wasn’t in California iirc.

            Ed:

            But it wasn’t to last. In 2013, NeuroVista, the company that made the device, essentially ran out of money. The trial participants were advised to have their implants removed. (The company itself no longer exists.)

            The ai wasn’t supported any longer and both external and internal devices were no longer useful. Whoever buys the company would be buying the ai and the rights to the device, at that point they could have restored the device if the electrodes weren’t removed. It seems they’re quite confident that wouldn’t happen anytime soon and so opted to have the electrodes removed.