Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ANY OTHER TAKE THAN "YES, WE NEED RIGHT TO REPAIR" IS TOTAL HORSESHIT

I will be able to service my products, that I paid for, and own, without Joos telling me I have to take it too a bunch of inferior nerds that don't know a fricking thing

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is propaganda aimed at restricting consumer rights based on the situation at hospitals, and it's not convincing for that case either. All aspects of a hospital's operation are subject to regulations, and adding a few more about necessary qualifications for someone to repair a device, instead of relying on manufacturers to deliberately prevent anyone from repairing a machine, isn't going to hurt anyone, and in fact I would be amazed if such regulations don't already exist. Actually, I imagine that right to repair would have benefits for healthcare, since machine downtime could be reduced by having on-site repair techs instead of having to wait for someone from the OEM to fly out or ship you a part.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They already have special certifications for in house medical electronics repair.


:chad!black2: :marseybear::marseyrefrigerator:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This sounds like total bullshit. It presumes that a hospital is required to buy a defibrillator from an FDA-approved vendor, but that it would be allowed to take it for repairs to Jose down the street. No, just add an implicit "buy or repair" to the forefront of the list of the restrictions they face, so that there are FDA-approved repairing services for defibrillators maybe, I don't really care tbh, I care more about my consumer electronics.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The right to repair bills heeded this article and exempted medical devices

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can physicians and patients be confident in non-FDA compliant vendors without the advanced training and technical ability to properly repair and recalibrate life-saving machines? Who could argue that “anyone can do it?” Lawyers.

No where in those papers or discussions are lawyers or hospitals or the FDA themselves saying that the right to repair medical devices shouldn’t be by FDA compliant vendors and servicers. Just that it should include people other than original manufacturers with open system specs.

>Why? Because when things go wrong, when medical devices fail, when patients and their families suffer the consequences, when associated health care costs skyrocket — it seems lawyers see opportunity. And they aim their lightening lances of litigation at the deepest pockets — the original manufacturers.

Yeah she original manufacturers are the only ones who have worked on the machine and it fricks up they are the ones who will be sued? Totally normal and correct.

>It seems the tort bar is creating a problem they can exploit for profit.

Where’s the profit in letting others do work on the machines? Original manufacturers will just void all warranties and have systems in place for them to be able to have proof to tell the court they weren’t the last one to service the machine if someone else touches its hardware or software? They can still be sued but it’ll be much harder to get a payout from them if someone else has changed anything or even recalibrated something that wasn’t them.

>But wait, it gets worse. By allowing third parties without any FDA competence to repair regulated, complicated medical devices, Right-to-Repair also opens the door to breaches in cybersecurity.

Not really? Admin passwords and accounts still exist even without right to repair. It’d be on hospitals to not give those out as it is now.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Then people turn around and complain about health care being too expensive. When "what about muh safety" is a universal acclaim to stop any change whatsoever, then no improvements can be made. This has a real cost, in that it prevents access to healthcare and leads to more deaths. But because these deaths don't leave anybody liable, they aren't accounted for in such analyses. Any medical regulation should require a cost-benefit analysis, which accounts not only for the health increase to those protected by the regulation, but also figures in the health decrease by those excluded from the medical system by it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This has a real cost, in that it prevents access to healthcare and leads to more deaths

Let them die. :marseyhead:

Why'd you think they're in the hospital anyway? They're tto weak for life.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He's making it seem like right to repair will make getting service by an FDA-compliant vendor will be illegal. Hospitals will still keep whatever maintenance contracts they currently do so that if the device fails, they can point to the contract and say, "We followed manufacturer guidelines. The medical device's failure isn't our fault."

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseycrusader:

Snapshots:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.