poiumty said:
Hmm. doesn't the software need recharging? Something that works on electrical impulses can't possibly have an infinity of them stored up.
If so, how do you do it? Do you open the patient back up and change the batteries?
Because that's pretty damn rough.
Also, yes I would trust an algorithm. Algorithms never make mistakes unless they weren't programmed properly in the first place. And chances are, if it's already been extensively tested... it isn't a matter of "trust".
I don't think a device like this necessarily needs to be completely embedded in a person; insulin pumps at the moment use electronics and aren't, as far as I know, hidden inside someone.
Anyway, interesting things! You're right about it not technically being a matter of "trust" - but humans are fickle creatures. Take the contraceptive pill, for example. Most women who use that stop taking it for a week every month, which induces a fake period of sorts. This isn't at all necessary, but for people who've spent their whole lives taking a period as an indication of their reproductive health, it
feels necessary. Medically it means almost nothing, but it's still included as part of the regimen. I've heard it referred to as a "sympathy bleed," even.
So how would a diabetic habituated to years of regulating their own blood sugar and insulin feel about handing control over to a small, but very clever, machine? Would the payoff of not having to inject routinely override any worries? I think it's an interesting line of inquiry.
EDIT: And then there are the embedded human batteries, of course... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113719-Scientists-Create-Deus-Ex-Style-Biofuel-Battery