Comments
DreamMaster8 t1_jckgrt1 wrote
Don't the new smasung watch do the same thing?
Reeeeeeener t1_jckhxvi wrote
For the same price, yeah
Eyes_and_teeth t1_jcl666f wrote
Edited my comment to reflect that.
Landon1m t1_jcm9mwf wrote
They’re a lot more affordable than most medical devices. The fact they’re mass produced to the numbers they are likely helps in making them more affordable. Classifying them as medical devices for certain diseases should be considered if they can reduce the costs of other treatments and lead to better lifestyles for patients.
Eyes_and_teeth t1_jcmbxjz wrote
Agreed.
velifer t1_jckiyko wrote
Still gonna be orders of magnitude cheaper than this:
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/experimental-gene-therapy-reverses-sickle-cell-disease-years
Eyes_and_teeth t1_jcl5gjz wrote
Assuming it's no longer considered experimental, I would expect private insurance and/or Medicare/Medicaid to provide coverage for that, even if it is more expensive.
The problem with asking private or public insurance to cover an iPhone/Apple Watch or comparable Android/Samsung implementation is that those devices are not limited to only the "fit for covered purpose" functionality.
esp211 t1_jcosdfl wrote
As opposed to dying? Or more expensive dedicated equipment?
Eyes_and_teeth t1_jcpwvkm wrote
Or less expensive dedicated equipment.
DisgustingCampaign90 t1_jck9b14 wrote
Good news.
forceful_bullion63 t1_jcsb3vt wrote
Indeed.
whyNadorp t1_jcma2ek wrote
why haven’t i read yet that apple watch can cure cancer, hiv and hemorrhoids? let’s make these ads more interesting, please.
dynamic424 t1_jcnh17h wrote
Becuase while Apple is making great strides in the medical department becuase of the sensors, advertising them as some medical device that can save or help keep your life great isnt a smart move.
jeedaiaaron t1_jclga6o wrote
Oh ok
[deleted] t1_jcn6yy9 wrote
[removed]
muleshoesx2 t1_jcp2tx8 wrote
How long before Republicans ban Apple watches?
[deleted] t1_jd2y5pu wrote
[removed]
DisgustingCampaign90 t1_jd77aso wrote
And then again it couldn't.
Duce-Springsteen t1_jcklwik wrote
It could help. And then again it couldn't.
Intelligent-Use-7313 t1_jcldwam wrote
I'll have whatever Macrumors is having, must be some good shit.
FSYigg t1_jcknro9 wrote
An Apple Watch isn't a medical device and they know it.
Any claim of medical help using an Apple Watch is spurious and possibly legally actionable.
FeralCJ7 t1_jclqwx0 wrote
> According to a study conducted by researchers at Duke University's Day Hospital (via MyHealthyApple), the Apple Watch could help treat vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), a key complication caused by sickle cell disease that often hospitalizes patients due to severe pain. The research indicates that machine learning using the Apple Watch's collected health data can discover trends to predict pain among people with sickle cell disease, which could provide an early warning signal and enable treatment via painkillers and saline hydration before it becomes more severe.
Assuming you didn't actually read the article and aren't actually in the legal profession.
A study, conducted by researchers, says "hey we may be able to use this to do this!"
Not Apple saying "use our watch to treat sickle cell!" at all. It's researchers saying the device may assist with early warning signs.
FSYigg t1_jcm4z3e wrote
>Assuming you didn't actually read the article and aren't actually in the legal profession.
I read the article. I don't have to be a legal expert or any other kind of expert to express my opinion, which is what I did. What's the point in you even stating this unless you're a legal expert yourself because you're rendering your own opinion here as well.
>A study, conducted by researchers, says "hey we may be able to use this to do this!"
A study was conducted using their watch as a data collection tool and nothing else. They were probably paid for the brand mention. Basically they used the watch as a sensor, that's all. A different brand watch could be used in exactly the same way or perhaps some actual medical sensors so there's nothing special about that claim, it's simply branding.
>Not Apple saying "use our watch to treat sickle cell!" at all. It's researchers saying the device may assist with early warning signs.
I didn't say Apple claimed anything. I said that claims of this thing being medically beneficial were spurious and possibly legally actionable.
FeralCJ7 t1_jcm5e7z wrote
K
virtualprince t1_jcls7z2 wrote
You are simply incorrect. There is more than enough evidence of medical benefits to having an Apple Watch.
FSYigg t1_jcm5dj9 wrote
It's a sensor, that's all.
It's like wearing a stethoscope and claiming that it's saving your life.
virtualprince t1_jcmmatr wrote
A sensor that tells you if you might be having afib. Right just like a stethoscope does.
FSYigg t1_jcmomok wrote
>A sensor that tells you if you might be having afib.
Yeah a sensor in the actual medical device called an AED - Automatic Electronic Defibrillator - determines that, not an Apple smartwatch.
>Right just like a stethoscope does.
The stethoscope is useless without a trained professional using it because anyone else is simply guessing at what they hear.
virtualprince t1_jcmozhs wrote
An Apple Watch has sensors that can help in predicting afib, smoothbrain.
FSYigg t1_jcmtoxv wrote
>An Apple Watch has sensors that can help in predicting afib
The article does not cover afib at all. What are you talking about? I only engaged with the AED because it's an actual medical device, which an Apple watch is not.
>smoothbrain
Sophomoric insults are a sure sign of a loser losing an argument.
Have a great day.
virtualprince t1_jcmtywp wrote
If you don’t know what the Apple Watch does why are you saying it has no medical benefits? If you don’t understand what I’m trying to say then I’m sorry no one can help you be better informed.
FSYigg t1_jcmvkqg wrote
>If you don’t know what the Apple Watch does why are you saying it has no medical benefits?
I know what an Apple watch is and what it's capable of doing. I said it's not a medical device. Medical benefits are a different story. Many non-medical devices have medical benefits. There's a big difference there.
Do you generally reply to people without actually reading their words? I said nothing about medical benefits.
virtualprince t1_jcmvtc1 wrote
Excuse me. I used the more sensible phrasing. You said “medical help”
Do you generally forget your own words shortly after writing them?
FSYigg t1_jcmwjos wrote
>You said “medical help”
No, I didn't say that either. You're trying so hard to shoehorn words into my mouth and you're failing because this is text.
The entire gist of my statements are that an Apple Watch is not a medical device, shouldn't be trusted as one, and people referring to it as such should not be trusted either.
You've literally made up everything else here.
virtualprince t1_jcmwuxb wrote
https://i.imgur.com/2dq9R15.jpg
Here’s a reminder where you say “medical help”
virtualprince t1_jcmx5jl wrote
Also, feel free to explain what I made up if you can remember. You can scroll up if you need a refresher.
JohnnyRyallsDentist t1_jcown07 wrote
FWIW, the debate between you and u/FSYigg is a little weird because you're both half right and half wrong.
You don't need an AED to detect AF. You just need an ECG. AF is diagnosed from irregularity and atrial activity as P waves, which the very basic-level ECG capabilities of the Apple watch are very capable of doing. A clinician can also fairly reliably detect the signs of AF with a stethoscope, although formal diagnosis would need to be confirmed by an ECG. More widely, cardiac problems generally need a 12 lead ECg, which the apple watch does not do. An apple watch can definitely detect AF. But it shouldn't be relied upon for formal diagnosis.
In other words, it's not a "medical device" in the sense that no doctor is likely to begin treatment for AF based on your own findings from a watch, but they would take a watch ECG seriously and reliably enough as a sign that further investigations are needed.
virtualprince t1_jcp67cq wrote
I know. I wasn’t trying to open that can of worms. All I said was that it can be medically benifival and can help in finding afib as it has for people I know. The watch detects a change and pings the wearer to get looked at.
virtualprince t1_jcmuruo wrote
Not to mention pulse ox and how much that does help a person with sickle cell tracking and predicting their vocs.
BeneficialElephant5 t1_jcnlavo wrote
You can buy a pulse oximeter for less than £10 and they have existed for decades. Pathetic that people think tacking a sensor onto a several hundred dollar device is some revolutionary medical advance. Get a grip.
[deleted] t1_jcodd3h wrote
[removed]
virtualprince t1_jcodoov wrote
Good lord, look at your profile asking the internet about drug dosing. Get a grip.
Eyes_and_teeth t1_jckdeby wrote
I just hope such useful medical technology doesn't remain permanently anchored to a platform that many can't afford and insurance is unlikely to cover (iPhone + Apple Watch or comparable Android/Samsung implementations).
Edit: updated to include other mobile platforms which have/are probably developing similar functionality.