Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is for wireless communication to/from the device and not operating it from the control panel. For critical incidents paramedics would use their own tools (glucometer & needle).



Hmm. Would the alternative method still be stable if someone had deliberately altered the internal pump to deliver in random, high-dosage spurts (or whatever else that would be hard to counter)? Of course, it starts getting a whole lot less stealthy then.

Would paramedics/well-equippped ambulance ever go as far as trying to disable an internal pump before reaching the hospital?

Edit: Also, what's the difference between the 'control panel' and the 'wireless [controller]'? My understanding was it was entirely implanted, with no external connections (and even recharged via induction loop, or surgical replacement). If that's the case, then all comms are, by necessity, wireless. NFC control might mitigate the threat a little, at least from a range perspective, but I can't see where there could otherwise be a difference.


Most definitely. If the patient's presentation suggests hypoglycemia, it isn't uncommon for a medic to test the glucose level with their machine and administer oral glucose (D50 IV if obtunded) without even getting to a detailed physical that would reveal the implanted pump/monitor. If an amp of D50 failed to raise the blood sugar, then we'd start hunting for other causes like exogenous insulin overdose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: