By Angelica Diaz
Technology spans many different avenues and products that many may not even consider to be “technology” under the more traditional computer and phones definition. The everyday products that help us run our homes and simply enhance our everyday lives are pieces of technology that if tampered with not only would create and inconvenience but legal issues could easily arise from it. Insulin pumps, a medical device used by many to assist and improve the quality of everyday life in diabetes patient, that is very much a piece of technology as a computer, is the perfect example of a piece of technology that has encountered a glitch and if not handled immediately huge law suites may arise.
Insulin pumps are catheters that are placed under the skin in order to deliver insulin to type 1 and some type 2 diabetes patients. Insulin is delivered continuously over 24 hours and maintains blood glucose levels at a healthy dosage for that particular patient between meals. One can manually adjust the insulin levels depending on the meal that was just eaten and your blood glucose levels. Recently, one specific brand of insulin pumps, OneTouch Ping Insulin Pumps, has released a statement explaining the vulnerability this product has in being hacked. At the time the statement was made there had been no malicious acts committed on someone using one of these pumps but it would be in the company’s best interest to get ahead of this problem.
A hacker is an individual who seeks to exploit weaknesses in a computer software network. The reasons why people hack cover a wide range, such as profit, protest, and even simple enjoyment. Since there has yet to be a legal claim that has arisen out of this alarming flaw in OneTouch insulin pumps, it is simple for one to still come up with the possibilities those legal claims could cover.
An insulin pump is programmed, and for it to be programmed specifically to a particular patient, personal information is stored into a pump such as gender, birth date, weight, and other necessary information to receive the proper dosage of insulin in relation to one’s blood glucose levels. If an insulin pump can be hacked, this information along with insulin prescriptions are at risk of being extracted, which leads to a violation of privacy that OneTouch may have to face legally. If the pump is susceptible to making simple medical history information open to hackers, that would further open the company to violations of HIPPA, which would further lead the company to federal charges. In a worst case scenario, OneTouch must also stay open-minded to the idea that if their pumps can be hacked, that means a patient’s dosage may be effected or even stopped all together, if a patient is harmed due to this hack the company could be facing criminal charges of neglect for not fixing the issue when they become aware of the problem. Untimely, these pumps are responsible for maintaining the health and welfare of its users, if that is affected in anyway could potentially result in hospitalization or even death and then OneTouch will definitely be facing large legal prosecution possibly such as wrongful death.
Insulin pumps are extremely beneficial tools when they are able to do what they were designed to do. OneTouch has recently become aware that one of their insulin pumps is susceptible to being hacked. If this company is not careful and does not ratify the problem before it escalates, their diabetes 1 and 2 patients are bound to have private medical information taken as well as there is the potential for hospitalization or death which lead to large liability. OneTouch may think this problem is small and no one should worry about it, the company themselves should worry and work quickly to ratify these flaws before they are hauled into court.
Blogger Bio: Angelica is a Content Editor for the Journal of High Technology Law. She is currently a 3L at Suffolk Law with an area of focus in Juvenile and Family Law. She holds a B.A. in Legal Studies from Bay Path University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
