@MortenNielsen Why would it be? 2023 has just started

@MortenNielsen ah, my mistake

@SamuelRichardson Oh no, there are already very effective implants that do that. Musk would never be the 5th or 6th to do something. He is basically promising to make people superhuman. Oh and he thinks we will be able to listen to music in silence. I wish I was kidding.

@BTE Do you think adults should be able to consent to this? Nevermind what you personally think of Musk, shouldn't other people be allowed to do what they want with their own lives, being aware of the potential risks?

@BTE Why is the management structure important? If a company has an absentee CEO I just assume more responsibilities are in the hands of the COO or whatever.

@PhillipConstantine Regardless of how you feel about it virtually every state in the world has some level of ownership over your body. Most make you wear seatbelts for example.

@PhillipConstantine Absolutely, but informed consent is critical. @MichaelWheatley If Musk is making decisions related to safety or product engineering or even if he has veto authority over someone else who runs those things it is important that it be disclosed to the IRB overseeing the study, which is the group ultimately responsible for patient safety. If the IRB thinks that is okay and don't think patient needs to be told that is their prerogative, but if I were a member of that IRB I would want to see that the person with final decision making authority on all matters related to safety and product design was a full time team member if not the inventor. As it happens, the inventor and Musk's cofounder has left Neuralink to join their main competitor, which is such a HUGE red flag I can't believe it isn't mentioned in the first paragraph of every story about the company.

@SamuelRichardson No. Governments don't make you wear seatbelts because they own your body, they make you wear seatbelts because fender benders shouldn't turn into vehicular homicides destroying multiple lives that would have been virtually unharmed were there basic safety measures in place. Not to mention the collective benefit of significantly lower insurance costs for all drivers by mandating use of basic safety measures. The seat belt isn't there just to protect the person wearing it, it is a collective action for the collective good.

@BTE The first example is just another example of seat belts being there to protect the person wearing them.

As for the second example, why don't you just cap court-ordered damages to the amount of harm which would have come to someone who had been wearing a seatbelt?

@MichaelWheatley Not taking a stance on the issue, but my interpretation of the first example is that it protects other people on the road from humans-turned-projectiles.

As long as healthcare costs are largely government funded (including in the US) I think there's a limited government interest in reducing future healthcare costs by encouraging seatbelts and discouraging wacky medical experiments.

@MichaelWheatley Caps on damages sound great, but in reality the US healthcare system is so fucked that rarely do capped damages come even close to covering the impact on cost of living and quality of life. Seatbelt laws make driving a significantly safer activity statistically, not just for each individual but for the entire population.

@MartinRandall Bingo.

@BTE Phillips original statement was "Should people be able to consent to installing the chip if they knew what the risks were" (I'm paraphrasing). I was pointing out that we already have a previous case where even though people might understand the risks of doing something they're still not allowed to do it (i.e. not wear seatbelts).

Your reasoning is correct about why we wear seat belts. That doesn't negate the fact that the state has some degree ownership over our bodies however, it just reenforces it.

FYI - I think seatbelts are a great idea and should be enforced, I'm just using it as an example of where people don't have 100% autonomy over their bodies. I do think the state has gone too far in other areas of control over body autonomy however, abortions rights for example should a personal choice and not have the state involved.

@SamuelRichardson Fair, 'ownership' in this context is certainly nuanced and I agree with your usage. I also agree with your closing sentiments.

@MartinRandall Heh, seems like a case of "one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens." Not that I disagree with the claim.

@osmarks Neuralink has been testing on monkeys since 2017.

@agentofuser No. The FDA permits a few exceptions for treatments, but they would not apply here.

On a related note, the more I learn about the FDA, the more appalled I am, which seems to be a general trend. The people who support it the most are the ones who understand it the least. I highly recommend FDAReview for anyone interested in Economics or Medicine https://www.fdareview.org/issues

@PhillipConstantine Oops, just realized that's not the full link I wanted

https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-examples-of-fda-harm/

@agentofuser What happens if a US company does trials off-shore?

@makoyass that would probably be pretty neat. @PhillipConstantine's question is about Neuralink specifically, but I'm assuming it would resolve positively it Neuralink does it offshore? I find it pretty unlikely they would though, as it might decrease or delay their chances of getting FDA approval, and beyond demonstrating it they'd still need a big wealthy market to sell to.

@ersatz Same thoughts.