https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article276183726.html
From the article you linked in the replies:
The company presented its findings to possible investors during the experimental trial, showing that seizures could be predicted and prevented, Cook told Nature. But, implanting a computer into the skull is an invasive procedure, and investors were uneasy. Without funding, the company discontinued the trial, and because the experimental implant had only a three-year battery life, it meant it had to be removed. “I wish I could’ve kept it, I would’ve done anything to keep it,” Leggett told researchers. She tried to buy it, hoping that by purchasing the implant the company would let her keep it inside her head. She told researchers her husband was willing to take out a second mortgage on their house just to finance the purchase. But the fight was lost, and Leggett was forced to get the implantremoved, according to the case report. “I was the last person to have the device out,” she told researchers. What followed was a mourning period. Leggett was thrust back into the life she was willing to get experimental surgery to escape. She cried for her loss of independence and the self-doubt she now felt knowing she could have a seizure at any time.
So, seeing the multitude of ways this could’ve been read, I think the person you’re responding to had come to this conclusion via the fact Leggett wasn’t even able to pay to keep it, and they wouldn’t accept the money to help her, just from the article you linked. I think it’d be easy to misunderstand seeing as how some articles are written, but it does take a definite lack of self control and critical thinking to jump to that kind of bizarre conclusion.
However, you’re also, kind of stupid. Not an idiot no, I bet you score fine on an IQ test, maybe even above me, but you’re stupid. The reason this woman was put back into a life of literal pain and seizure, going off the article you yourself had linked, was because the company after going bankrupt due to lack of support, could also not support her anymore, simply because investors were “uneasy” about it. This is still an issue of privatized health care and its failings, as well as the larger failings of capitalism.
Medicine itself I believe, is fundamentally communistic, and will never even come close to thriving under capitalism. That is because medicine is about making other peoples suffering your problem, and working to deal with that simply to end suffering, and help people, by putting the weight of their lives and comfort on your shoulders. There are only two ways medicine will ever truly thrive: 1. Via the intense passion and dedication of individuals willing to shoulder the burden of all who suffer from health complications and work their hardest to lighten the burden of others, for no other reason than the pursuit of understanding and helping people, or 2. The support of everyone and everything behind medical establishments, for no other reason than the pursuit of understanding and helping people. Definitely both. And life isn’t binary, these insane levels don’t need to be reached, medicine can and will fail no matter what, it is a human creation, we can’t even expect non-human creations to succeed 100% of the time, but the best we can do is work towards these conditions, for no other reason than the pursuit of understanding and helping people.
When the structure of medicine is based on profits, people like Leggett will not be cared for, and that is what matters.
Not minor misinformation that scoots the finger of blame ever so slightly towards the company and away from the investors, and not your nitpicks that entirely miss the point.
Either medical establishments who are proven to effectively treat people are unconditionally supported, or, in my eyes, it’s a system built to crumble. Like a bridge with no supports. And what we saw here, is a bridges supports being denied, and the bridge left to fall, and all those who relied on it to fall with them. Just off of the article you linked in the replies.
Really missed the forest for the trees there buddy.
Were you really so quick to be an anti-communist and minorly queerphobic contrarian that you forget about the real sufferings of someone who was failed by privatized healthcare specifically because it’s support was left up to a market of unwilling investors and did not have the unwavering support simply because it could save lives, but was instead denied support because, according to the article YOU LINKED, investors were uncomfortable, or maybe, deemed it unprofitable, it doesn’t matter, they were denied support. She also desperately tried to keep the implant, for sentimental value, and still, it was removed. The article you linked didn’t mention why, but I’ll assume it was a health reason and not because she was part of an experiment and didn’t actually own the technology that was in her head.
This is not the work of evil capitalists, this is the failure of a capitalist system, and there is no way to deny that.
