https://media.arkansasonline.com/img/photos/2015/07/13/cochl...
The "external sound processor and transmitter" is an electronic appliance, like a phone, which the patient removes and puts on, like glasses. It can be lost or damaged.
The reason that the external device is abandoned by the manufacturer is the same for abandoning phone software and batteries: market strategy.
My personal opinion is that the most basic product line must guarantee quality and two or three decades of support. Part of the product is INSIDE of the patient. State of the art devices for people who can afford them are another matter entirely.
However, sometimes the difference between Basic and "State of the art" in medicine is non existent, and the patient only pays for it because they don't know better. Most of them don't like it when they get the full story.
If you clicked the link [1] in the article, it sounds like designing them to survive regular day-to-day usage is important. Components will wear down over time and replacing them is inevitable.
[1] https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/cp-802-sound-processor-...
If that was the case, then the author missed a big opportunity use this one sentence to spell this out and lend a whole lot of credibility to the article (that the article is currently missing).
> Companies like Cochlear Americas stop providing parts or service for old processors, essentially forcing people with cochlear implants to upgrade to newer versions. A new processor isn't covered by the Saskatchewan health plan.[1]
> The typical replacement timeframe is once every five to seven years, or the lifespan of the sound processor. [2]
> After March 31, 2023, you will no longer be able to purchase parts and accessories for all Nucleus 6 Sound Processors and Cochlear will no longer be able to repair them.[3]
[1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/costs-to-maintai...
[2]https://www.saskhealthauthority.ca/your-health/conditions-di...
[3]https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/campaign/product-retirement-2...
Folks with cochlear implants regularly (i.e. once a year) meet with audiologists to tweak the parameters of the device that feeds the implant, called a "processor." The tweaking process is referred to as "mapping."
The processor is a very small, delicate piece of equipment. Over time, various parts wear out and have to be replaced. Rechargeable batteries stop holding charge, microphone elements putter out from exposure to sweat and dead skin, etc. If the company no longer offers parts/service, then when something stops working, there's not much to be done.
In defense of the manufacturers: a cochlear implant and accompanying processor are very specialized pieces of electronic equipment. The hardware, algorithms, etc. are all being improved over time. So it's not totally unreasonable to try to move folks unto the newer models.
I think the issue is the period of support. I think these need to be designed to last 10 or even 20 years. And this needs to be clear before the surgery like informed consent.
The other issue is optionality. It’s nice that there’s a new model and that businesses want to move people on to it. It’s not nice that the old model is unnecessarily, from an ops standpoint, turned off to require patients to upgrade.
If I had to choose for my 4 year old between deafness and an implant that worked for 4 years and then cost my family 10x my annual pay every four years, although I’d be heartbroken, I’d have to choose deafness.
I also think the initial price must include the price of surgical extraction so this kid isn’t stuck with a non-functioning implant in his head for life.
For comparison, a pacemaker battery lasts 5 years and can be replaced in an outpatient clinic [0]. But pacemaker recipients typically only live 5-15 years so it’s quite different than putting this in a kid who will have it for 70-80 years.
[0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-t...
>Their child’s current processor—a “basic” model designed for the developing market—was becoming “obsolete” and would no longer be serviced by the company. The family would need to purchase another one, said to be a “compulsory upgrade.”
...from the quote above, it doesn't sound like there is anything wrong with their existing hardware. And it doesn't seem like the existing hardware is broken. It sounds like a pushy sales department is trying to scare these people into upgrading to the latest-and-greatest version? Or is there some supposed medical reason you need to adjust the parameters of the device on a regular basis?
>In one especially devastating case, a father lamented that his daughter, who had been doing well with her implant, could no longer hear since her device had become obsolete.
Is there a timer in the existing hardware that is shutting things off after a certain amount of time? Or it phones home somehow, and gets instruction from the mother ship that it should stop working? Is there more than this one case? I guess the article keeps using the term "planned obsolescence", but I need some more evidence to go on here. Could it be that in this one case, the kid dropped the external processor in the river, and now it doesn't work? And the article also keeps mentioning continued maintenance, but seems to be conflating maintenance with upgrades. Maybe these people are showing up at the audiologist for a "check-up", and the audiologists are bricking the devices in the name of upgrades?