371.091 XNUMX marches. He did a lot Michael Straight thanks to his robotic exoskeleton before a simple breakdown stops him. But it was not the malfunction that further paralyzed him, but rather the manufacturer’s refusal to repair the device. This paradoxical story of denied reparations is not only the chronicle of a personal struggle, but the emblem of a larger problem that touches on ethics, technology and patients’ rights.
Repair refused: one step forward, two steps back
Michael Straight, a former jockey paralyzed from the waist down after a horse-riding accident, found hope thanks to an exoskeleton ReWalk Personnel worth $100.000. A considerable expense for an advanced device which allowed him to regain mobility, radically changing his life. However, after ten years of use, a small malfunction turned his dream into a bureaucratic nightmare.
It is a story that brings together everything that makes us doubt the future: fairness of care, the right to repair, planned obsolescence.
The problem of obsolescence
The exoskeleton problem, complains Straight in a post on Facebook, it was a simple cable detached from the battery that powered the wristwatch used to control the exoskeleton. A repair that, in theory, should have cost a few dollars. However, when he contacted Lifework for a repair, he received a shocking response: his device was “too old” to repair.
“I find it very hard to believe that after paying almost $100.000 for the car and workout, a $20 battery for the watch is the reason I can’t walk anymore,” commented Straight .
The dark side of innovation
This case highlights a growing problem in the field of advanced medical devices. These technologies can radically change the lives of people with severe disabilities, but they also make their owners dependent on the whims of manufacturers, who often operate with purely commercial interests.
Nathan Supervisorhead of the Right to Repair Project at the US Public Interest Research Group, commented: “This is the dystopian nightmare we have entered, where the manufacturer’s view of products is that their liability takes end when they deliver them to the customer. That’s not enough for a device like this, but it’s the same thing we see top to bottom with every product.
Michael Straight: risks being paralyzed because the company that produces his exoskeleton refuses to repair it.
The right to repair: a broader fight
Straight’s case is part of a broader debate on “right to repair”. In the absence of strict regulations, manufacturers are not obliged to share parts, tools and specialized guides that would make repairs possible by third parties This practice, common in the world of consumer technology, becomes particularly problematic when it comes to essential medical devices.
“People need to be able to fix things, there needs to be protection,” Proctor added. “A $100.000 product that you can only use as long as the battery lasts is infuriating.”
Fortunately, after an intense media campaign that included appearances on local television and a strong social media presence, Lifework relented and Straight was able to have his exoskeleton repaired. But this victory raises worrying questions: What happens to those who do not have the resources or visibility to fight such a battle?
Wider implications
Straight’s case is not isolated. There have been other cases of patients being left with unusable proprietary technologies when manufacturing companies went out of business or stopped supporting them. For example, some patients lost their vision when the manufacturer of a bionic eye stopped supporting the devices.
These cases highlight the need for stricter regulation in the advanced medical device sector. The issues go beyond the simple right to redress and touch on issues such as business ethics, social responsibility and patient rights.
Towards a more sustainable future?
Straight’s story has highlighted a problem that needs urgent attention. It is essential that transformative innovations are accompanied by ethical and sustainable practices.
4 possible solutions:
- Stricter legislation on the right to repair, particularly for medical devices;
- Long-term support obligations for advanced medical technology manufacturers;
- Create open standards to facilitate third-party repairs;
- Greater transparency on repair and maintenance costs at the time of purchase.
Human rights and reparation: a turning point?
Michael Straight’s odyssey could represent a turning point in the debate on the right to repair and the ethics of biomedical companies. His story reminds us that behind every device is a human life and that business decisions have real, far-reaching consequences.
These advances must not create new forms of dependence or vulnerability. Breaking free from a state of paralysis, only to become slaves to a technology company, is not the future we want.
