A contraceptive computer chip that can be controlled by remote control has been developed in Massachusetts.
The chip is implanted under a woman’s skin, releasing a small dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone.
This will happen every day for 16 years, but can be stopped at any time by using a wireless remote control.
The project has been backed by Bill Gates, and will be submitted for pre-clinical testing in the US next year - and possibly go on sale by 2018.
The device measures 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and will be “competitively priced”, its creators said.
This is amazing, but I’m pretty sure the chip would have to be metal which means I and other people with metal allergies couldn’t use it. It’s really amazing though.
…this might work for some people but does anyone see the major red flag of this being -very easy- to undermine without the birth control user’s knowledge?
Who would have access to the remotes? And the source code? Microsoft can’t keep their tech right now. And that’s before we get into ways of hacking the chips to release extra hormones. Enough to make users sick, increase their susceptibility to infertility, or to a stroke.
um by 2018 ppl.
They are probably working all the kinks out.
Like they worked the kinks out when they were studying syphilis at Tuskegee? Or those Mississippi Appendectomies?
You just pointed out 2 studies that were conducted before the IRB was established but okay.
IRB didn’t prevent prisoners from being illegally sterilized in California, or toxic waste being used to line playgrounds. It didn’t keep the government from using foster kids as lab subjects either. I mean we can hit any time period in the US & find reasons not to trust these kinds of projects. That’s before we get into the various recalls of FDA approved contraceptives because of harmful side effects.
Never use any medications, guys! These examples of the failures of drug development mean that development and regulation never work and are always harmful!
Yes that’s the take away. Not interrogating flaws in this model of delivering medication. And certainly not wanting better quality options that aren’t so easy to abuse!
Literally not my argument. When someone voices concerns about how a new medication/therapy/device is to be developed and marketed, it only makes sense to follow that up with “And here’s a list of egregious violations of human rights committed by the medical community so therefore I can’t possibly trust that this new medication/therapy/device will be safe” if you don’t use any medicine/therapy/device because everything that’s marketed in the US as medicine/therapy/device has undergone thorough safety trials just like this new chip will. So if it won’t work for this new device then why should it work for any?
You realize I expressed concerns & talked about prior & current violations that foster those kinds of concerns right? That even if the tech is safe it still carries a higher than average risk of misuse? Try reading my argument & the concerns of others in this thread for content & context.
Here’s the thread:
OP: Interesting new device to soon enter clinical trials!
Commenter 1: Sounds cool but sadly it’s unlikely to work for everyone.
Commenter 2: Concerns about privacy and proper use.
Commenter 3: More concerns about privacy, proper use, and patient safety.
Commenter 4: Aren’t these the things to be addressed during development?
Commenter 3: Here are a couple of examples of people dying from unauthorized or immoral medical research.
Commenter 4: Old stuff, not relevant now with current safeguards.
Commenter 3: More recent examples where the safeguards failed or were ignored altogether, therefore this new product must be untrustworthy.
My argument: If you’re going to derive your decision about this device from cherry picked data, then the logical conclusion is to apply this standard to all FDA-approved therapies and not trust any of them.
Like, it’s one thing to be wary about the setup of clinical trials for new medical products and the potential safety risks/concerns, but you’re going way off the deep end by saying “Tuskegee syphilis experiment, therefore no one can possibly trust this new research briefly described in a BBC article.”
tl;dr I strongly disagree with the argument that because bad stuff sometimes finds its way onto the market (and is discovered to be bad in the first place because it’s a highly regulated market that self-corrects), that nothing at all can be trusted.
I’m commenter 4, 6, & 7. Try to keep up. And what you’re taking away vs what was said is still wrong. You’re assuming that I (or anyone else) said nothing can be trusted. No one said that. We said this is a bad model for reasons. Someone said “oh that’ll be fixed in 4 years” & my response was “Don’t count on that because history” & then “Well that’s history so doesn’t apply now” & I said “Here’s current events showing problems still exist” & then you came out of left field asserting that slippery slopes are the only option. Meanwhile, reproductive health in America carries a particular fucked up weight that is heavier on some than other because of factors like race & class. Try nuance instead of leaping to conclusions.