Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except this is not about microchip implants, which is readily obvious if you'd bother to figure out what you're talking about. Are there safety concerns with pacemakers, replacement heart valves, or implanted cerebral stimulators?
The bill previously written was about ANYTHING implanted.. INCLUDING microchips..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore
Since you don't buy the excuses provided, being the perspicacious individual you are, what is the REAL purpose of this registry?
I dont care what the purpose of the registry is, I'm more concerned with the excuses. If I have a pacemaker, the manufacturer, and the hospitals are aware. There is no need for the government to keep a log. We have an FDA approval process for a reason. Once the FDA deems something "safe", there is no longer a need for them to log who has had "safe" proceedures done..
I guess this is where we differ. If I had a pace maker, I dont think the government needs to know this. I expect the manufacturor to notify this in the event of a recall, but I see little reason to notify the government that I have one...
Again, where does it end? How much is enough?
"for your safety" is an excuse the government could use to monitor every activity in ones life. How many hamburgers you eat, yep, for your safety. How many cell phones, computers, tv's etc do you own? Yep, they need to know this for our own safety as well.
Would you accept this as well?
Fine - we have a different line. I think it absolutely is a good (almost necessary) thing that the government continually regulate and ensure the safety of medical devices - including implantable chips of any kind.
I will take issue with one thing you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If I choose to get an implant for the purpose of computer security, or to purchase products, again, its not the governments business. If I get an implant for banking purposes (previous link to Mondex.com for example), there is no reason for the government to know my banking habbits.
These proposals, laws, regulations, etc aim to register the medical chip (and conceivably other implantable chips) itself. I've never heard of anyone advocating that the government have access to the data on the chip(s).
I'd vigorously join you (and most assuredly the ACLU) in fighting any such proposal. Any such thing that came into law would certainly be ruled unconstitutional (the Supreme Court has ruled we have a constitutional right to privacy - I can't image any court allowing the government complete and unfettered access to all data on any implanted chip).
If the justification is they need to log whats in your body "for your safety", than indeed hamburger consumption argument is valid..
Yep, I think we're done here.
The initial claim of the thread has been thoroughly debunked, with the OP slinking off never to return to defend their claim. (twowolves, where'd you go?)
Now, in their stead, you are here complaining that the FDA wants a registry on implanted medical devices like pacemakers, on the basis that one day they will monitor your hamburger consumption. Simply put, I disagree. I don't have any medical devices implanted in me, but I wouldn't feel like my liberty was being threatened if the FDA had it on record.
It's funny how naive you are, in that you are worried about government surveillance, yet you think if they were going to do something really invasive that they would inform you of it and make it so blatantly public.
Partially true. It indeed sets up a logging method to record implantable devices, but this leads to 2 questions
1) Some of these devices are already logged by the manufacturors and hospitals, so why is there a need for the government to do so
2) Some of the devices not logged and indexed, if this would have become law, would indeed begin to be logged. I can see the need to log things like artificial hearts by the manufacturer in the event of a recall, but do you really think everything implanted should be logged and recorded by the government? Why?
Why? Because Medicare pays for a lot of these devices and knowing which companies are more apt to have their artificial knees and hips recalled can save the government a lot of money. When I had my knee replaced I searched for recalls and was shocked at how many thousands people have had to theirs done over because of faulty manufacturing errors. A company with a bad rate will see their Medicare reimbursements dry up and doctors will use the better medical device.
Fine - we have a different line. I think it absolutely is a good (almost necessary) thing that the government continually regulate and ensure the safety of medical devices - including implantable chips of any kind.
My opinion is that the government has an obligation to protect society, not individuals. If a company goes through and receives FDA approval for a product, then the government has deemed that product safe and all safety concerns have been answered to the satisfaction of the government.
The argument that the government now needs to monitor implants that the government has deemed safe, for the purpose of safety concerns, is them contradicting themself. Either they are safe, or they are not, and if they are not safe, they shouldnt have been approved by the FDA to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33
These proposals, laws, regulations, etc aim to register the medical chip (and conceivably other implantable chips) itself. I've never heard of anyone advocating that the government have access to the data on the chip(s).
And a year ago, you wouldnt have had anyone calling for a government database of microchips implanted in your hand for the purpose of pc security.. Once society becomes used to technology, then there is a further call to regulate and log the transactions. I can definately see a day where individuals would have a microchip in a hand to do grocery shopping, and with that microchip logged by the government, and the IRS having access to banking transactions, your purchases and sales become an open book to the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33
I'd vigorously join you (and most assuredly the ACLU) in fighting any such proposal. Any such thing that came into law would certainly be ruled unconstitutional (the Supreme Court has ruled we have a constitutional right to privacy - I can't image any court allowing the government complete and unfettered access to all data on any implanted chip).
That right to privacy might indeed be considered a right to implant a device in our hand which the FDA has deemed "safe", without the governments knowledge..
The bill previously written was about ANYTHING implanted.. INCLUDING microchips..
I dont care what the purpose of the registry is, I'm more concerned with the excuses. If I have a pacemaker, the manufacturer, and the hospitals are aware. There is no need for the government to keep a log. We have an FDA approval process for a reason. Once the FDA deems something "safe", there is no longer a need for them to log who has had "safe" proceedures done..
I wonder how the other side of the argument would be if patients with hepatitis, AIDS, herpes, or other diseases were chipped......... all in the interest of the public safety mind you.
Now, in their stead, you are here complaining that the FDA wants a registry on implanted medical devices like pacemakers, on the basis that one day they will monitor your hamburger consumption. Simply put, I disagree. I don't have any medical devices implanted in me, but I wouldn't feel like my liberty was being threatened if the FDA had it on record.
It's funny how naive you are, in that you are worried about government surveillance, yet you think if they were going to do something really invasive that they would inform you of it and make it so blatantly public.
Go back and have a few drinks, maybe it'll sink in that this was a requirement of the government to be notified of all implants in the body.
Hey, I've had a piece of metal in my arm for the last 10+ years, its about the size of an implant chip (doctors said dont worry about it, its probably safer there than having it removed). Should I notify the federal government that its there? By definition, its a safety concern and an implant..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Why? Because Medicare pays for a lot of these devices and knowing which companies are more apt to have their artificial knees and hips recalled can save the government a lot of money. When I had my knee replaced I searched for recalls and was shocked at how many thousands people have had to theirs done over because of faulty manufacturing errors. A company with a bad rate will see their Medicare reimbursements dry up and doctors will use the better medical device.
As this law was written, if I went to have a microchip put into place by Mondex, so I can conduct banking transactions, the government would be REQUIRED to be notified. You are excusing the government wanting to get involved in transactions they are not involved in and confusing the issue.
Medicare though does not notify the FDA that you had a knee replaced, and they already track what companies have higher recalls. Its why they only approve some companies while not approving other ones. They do NOT send this info onto the FDA to track.
In addition, if you used private insurance, then private insurance would also be required to notify the FDA of your knee replacement. Your recall example validates my argument because there exists a recall process in place. There is no FDA database needed to partike in a recall. Those who had knees replaced, had knees replaced at the expense of the manufacturer, not medicare..
My opinion is that the government has an obligation to protect society, not individuals. If a company goes through and receives FDA approval for a product, then the government has deemed that product safe and all safety concerns have been answered to the satisfaction of the government.
The argument that the government now needs to monitor implants that the government has deemed safe, for the purpose of safety concerns, is them contradicting themself. Either they are safe, or they are not, and if they are not safe, they shouldnt have been approved by the FDA to begin with.
I can see your point, but I think your sentiment is very naive. Even in today's technological age, you can find thousand of instances in which we initially thought something was "safe" or "beneficial,", only later to find out it was much more harmful than the problem it was designed to correct or address. One of the most important roles of government is to ensure good public health (both philosophically and in our law). Continual regulation and study of the safety of medical devices is, for me, an essential duty of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
That right to privacy might indeed be considered a right to implant a device in our hand which the FDA has deemed "safe", without the governments knowledge..
It could be - but not given US case law considering the balance of personal freedom vs. the government's duty to assure good public health.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
