Accepting the built-in device software is also an "experiment."
Being conservative does not always mean accepting the status quo.
An experiment with substantial testing and one that is legally backed if something is wrong. These are class 3 FDA approved devices, which means they have rigorous testing. They aren't just FDA cleared.
So calling them an "experiment" is really understating it. There's a huge difference between an experiment with one participant and done by someone without formal medical knowledge and many experiments with large sample sizes performed by several medical professionals who are experts on the specific device at hand. The two aren't comparable, and it's a ridiculous notion to equate them.
In the context of my statement, being conservative means accepting lower risk.
BUT I find a very disturbing thing being glossed over. The son can't consent to this experimentation.
That's where I draw the line. You can hack away on your own devices all day. You know the risks involved, or at least are aware that some do (it's hard to know all the risks with anything medical). But hacking away on a minor's device isn't just risky, it is unethical. There's a reason this type of thing is hard to get passed a experimentation review board. I know the parent can consent for the child but there are limits to this (like that a parent can be considered endangering their child if they don't vaccinate). I know there is likely low risk in this type of hacking, but unless the upside makes a substantial quality of life difference (I don't know what it's like to live with type 1), it is concerning that you would risk a child's health. When it comes to health I think there's a good reason to be conservative.
Once an adult (I'd even find that fine with a 16 year old) I think the equation changes. Hacking away is good, but we also need ethics.