MadMenace [she/her]

Sure, but insurance companies regularly deny claims for any reason they can find.

I somehow doubt elective, experimental electronic implants are classified as a “pre-existing condition.”

Others have speculated that she may have been denied health insurance coverage unless she had it removed. That’s not much of a choice when you’re an old disabled woman.

Even if her death is guaranteed by leaving it in (and I’m not sure it is without more information), does that make it ethical to remove? Perhaps the patient would prefer a shorter life with greater quality in regards to her seizures. After all, don’t we allow and accept cancer patients to forgo treatment and enjoy the time they have left?

I’m guessing the patients were required beforehand to sign forms consenting to the device being taken out in the event of ___________ (in this case, the company going under). Because otherwise I don’t understand how it’d be legal to force someone to have brain surgery against their will.

But if the company can’t continue maintenance and support for the device, why not have her sign new forms exempting them from liability and just let her keep it? Is potential liability not the only limiting factor here? And would this be ethical?

Why? Just because it hasn’t been noticed until now doesn’t mean it hasn’t been inside people before.

Good advice, but it’s worth mentioning that ANY animal bite is an infection risk because animal mouths harbor bacteria.

Any injury that opens your insides up to the outside should be thoroughly washed with soap and water to minimize the amount of pathogens that pass through, but animal mouths and claws can harbor some nasty pathogens that have evolved to coexist with animals. Ever heard of cat scratch fever?