[HN Gopher] An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its ma...
___________________________________________________________________
An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker refused
repairs
Author : paulpauper
Score : 59 points
Date : 2024-10-11 21:03 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| ChumpGPT wrote:
| http://archive.today/cKeCi
| wiskinator wrote:
| And this is why right to repair laws are a thing.
|
| Also, genuinely I'd be interested in helping this guy hack his
| exoskeleton to let it work again.
| kleiba wrote:
| That depends on how exactly a right to repair law is going to
| regulate things. Will a company have to provide parts for older
| models forever? Because in the article it says that he was
| going to fix it himself but couldn't find the part that
| connects the battery to his controller watch.
| jjk166 wrote:
| They shouldn't be making such unnecessary proprietary
| components. For cases where there really is no way around
| using custom hardware, at end of life the specifications
| should be made public so that a third party can manufacture
| them.
|
| In this specific case, the real issue is just the incredibly
| short service lifetime. While different medical devices are
| going to have different lifetimes, manufacturers need to
| continue to provide support for at least 36 months after
| reporting that they plan to discontinue support, which is 60%
| of the lifetime of this product. Typically medical devices
| are supported for much longer.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Isn't five years longer than 36 months?
| jjk166 wrote:
| 36 months is 60% of five years.
| cptaj wrote:
| Not sure about the US but in some countries this is regulated
| for cars. Companies are required to provide parts for a
| certain amount of years after discontinuation of the product.
|
| It seems abundantly reasonable that a similar requirement be
| imposed for prosthesis. And it would also be very reasonable
| for the required period to be longer than that of cars.
|
| So yeah, not forever, but definitely not a a short period
| either.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Not sure about the US
|
| I think this was something that used to be regulated but is
| not now. There's plenty of financial justification for
| supporting cars 10 or more years by making parts, since
| most last longer than that. For niche products that are
| practically one-offs, I can see where it might need to be
| regulated because the economics won't encourage it.
| ars wrote:
| He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need
| to hack it.
|
| He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If
| they had not, he doesn't need the _right_ to repair it, rather
| would need someone to manufacture the part.
| rkhassen9 wrote:
| But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair
| laws.
| financetechbro wrote:
| One could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts
| providers if devices are built under a right to repair
| framework
| yellers wrote:
| Once again, that thing falls under FDA regulations.
| You're telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and
| match components, all FDA approved in any and all
| combinations on 5 year plus old devices?
| the_gorilla wrote:
| >He just needs a part.
|
| Right to repair, in a broad sense, also covers access to
| parts. This is definitely an edge case and we might want to
| just consider that if we're going to do experiments on
| disabled with the aim of helping them, and they want to
| continue using the tools, we might have to subsidize access
| to the parts until they die.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I don't think it's an edge case at all. Right to repair
| doesn't require a manufacturer to continue making parts or
| spend their own money on creating a large inventory of
| them. It's one thing to require Apple to sell you a phone
| screen they are still making, it's another to require them
| to be able to sell any number of them at any time from ones
| they do not.
|
| Right to repair is a negative right. There's no reason to
| turn it into a positive one.
| the_gorilla wrote:
| It's an edge case because the supply is so small and the
| hardware is so specialized. If this were an iPhone screen
| there's be a dozen companies in china capable of
| producing and selling them near cost if apple didn't
| interfere, and we'd have plenty of people willing to
| repair and resell the screens if apple would stop abusing
| US customs to seize repaired screens as they've done in
| the past.
| yellers wrote:
| Hang on, what about the part where the FDA only approved the
| thing for a 5 year use and essentially pushed the manufacturer
| into liability if they worked on it after that period? Maybe
| that's the issue that needs repairing first.
| tomrod wrote:
| Your point is valid, and is improved when we recognize it's
| not an either/or blame game when acknowledging the parts of
| the system that need improvement for failures like this
| person experienced.
| akira2501 wrote:
| It doesn't sound like a hard and fast rule. It seems like
| it's whatever the manufacturer asks for in terms of "intended
| working life." This _seems_ to be the original FDA
| certification for the device:
|
| https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/den130034.p.
| ..
|
| The problem here, of course, is it's not the device itself,
| but the simple remote control peripheral that is designed to
| switch device operating modes.
|
| The FDA should force manufacturers of "two piece" systems
| like this to have backup controls on the device itself and to
| exclude these non-medical components designed for control
| from any regulation covering "intended design life."
|
| It seems like a daffy middle ground that the FDA lets exist
| and manufacturers take advantage of when they can.
| seb1204 wrote:
| So in the end it was a mix of bad company actions and regulations
| that made this repair a struggle for him.
|
| I heard from a mobility scooter technician that there is barely
| any second market for the as typically the health insurance will
| get you a new one every few years. So similar to the companies
| response to just buy the newest model.
| krisoft wrote:
| > was a mix of bad company actions and regulations
|
| We actually don't know the second part. What we know is that
| the company claimed that regulations were involved. Might or
| might not be true.
|
| Wouldn't be the first time when a company didn't want to do
| something for financial reasons and they decided to read the
| regulations in a way which made them more money.
| jkestner wrote:
| As for needing to provide parts into the future, a friend's
| company does aftermarket service for many expensive pieces of
| government equipment. Presumably they're able to make what's
| needed because the government requires it of the original
| manufacturer.
|
| The government could require that manufacturers either supply
| replacement parts or specs for someone else to manufacture them.
| I suppose the latter would be required to avoid gouging. It'd be
| interesting to think about the secondary effects--if you can't
| make a lot of money off of service, will you make longer-lasting
| products and charge appropriately?
| dataflow wrote:
| Why in the world did the reporters not try to investigate the FDA
| rules that supposedly prevents this, instead of trying to shame
| the company? Either the company is wrong, or that's the real
| story here.
| Me000 wrote:
| Why didn't people investigate the republicans who stole all the
| FDA funds?
| fakedang wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. But then again, journalists have long
| ceased to be investigative or technologically versed.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I wonder if he posted the part on Reddit they could have helped
| him
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > Medicare said it would start paying for 80 percent of
| exoskeletons, which at Lifeward cost about $100,000.
|
| > And although that coverage doesn't extend to paraplegics who
| have injuries to their spine as high up as Straight
|
| Oh man, i feel for everyone who live in the USA and require any
| sort of medical help. Either you spend all your hard earned money
| or you got to get in a though fight with the medical
| administration.
| exolymph wrote:
| While the US healthcare system does suck in numerous ways, is
| this kind of thing even available elsewhere, via socialized
| medicine? (Maybe the answer is yes, which would be great!)
| from-nibly wrote:
| Right to repair should cover things like putting locks on devices
| that are illegal to unlock to repair. Making it illegal to do
| whatever the Frick you want to something you bought. Making it
| illegal to make parts yourself or have 3rd party companies make a
| part.
|
| It should not force companies to build parts for you. Forcing
| people to do work they do not want to is insane. That kind of
| talk would prevent me from building anything and letting my
| neighbor borrow it.
|
| And no, saying "it wouldnt apply to you just <insert
| demographic>" doesn't make me feel any better about that.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| In other news Microsoft abandoned the surface duo after 1 yearly
| android update. If you don't control the software you don't
| really own the device, whether it be a phone or an exoskeleton.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-11 23:00 UTC)