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.

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.

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.