From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 02:06:19 MST
Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> I hope Dr. Mann sues their asses off.
>
>
>
> Sadly, I see almost any judge saying "this is not a medical condition,
> you did this to yourself, and you knew the risks; the 'national
> interest' is superior to your technobabble concerns". At most, he could
> get damages for the parts that really did bleed, but legal precedent is
> that non-life-sustaining equiment, even artificial limbs, is more
> property than body.
If he does then we have some work to do to raise hell about such
a ruling. It certainly will not actually end there. Any
reasonably competent shyster should be able to show extreme
cruelty, reckless endangerment, major psychological trauma just
for starters. The concerns are certainly not "technobabble" in
the least. What is the difference between what he wears today
and when you or I have our memories boosted (non-medical need)
with embedded chips or when we have extra processing power or
skills embedded to improve on nature - not merely to somewhat
recover from disease. The pursuit of happiness means nothing if
we are not free to improve ourselves in such ways. Where is the
boundary that makes external wearable fundamentally different
form internal augmentations? Where is the boundray between a
laptop and a wearable if that laptop is a significant aid to a
very large part of your functioning? An artificial limb is my
limb, without it I am crippled. Does the court claim the right
to cripple me at its discretion? I think this falls under cruel
and unusuable punishment, not to mentioned legalized mayhem.
Such rulings would amount to saying it is a sometiems tolerated
privilege, at best, to go beyond the hardware you were born with
unless you cannot live any other way. That is a pretty slippery
slope.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:58 MST