It might be a funny stunt, but there could be some serious consequences.
This glucose monitor excuse gets trotted out for these topics every time, but someone wielding a Flipper is probably the least of your concerns if device and connectivity reliability is so critical.
People become inured to extreme risks. It's common to come across people with history of anaphylaxis who only carry one or zero epipens, despite the extreme risk of death.
Some schools ban phones completely. And the school is not responsible if the children can't call 911 if there's some emergency for example.
And some buildings are constructed of materials which will obstruct the mobile signal as well. Nobody is held responsible for that when they can't call 911.
And I believe it's perfectly legal for me to use radio-blocking paint on the walls of my own house, that might obstruct the signals for the neighbours as well, if I'm hypothetically in a weak signal area. In that case the mobile operator has no right to force their signals through my home, it's within my right to block it as long as I don't use any form of illegal jamming.
The person you're replying to was also careful to say you are morally responsible. That has nothing to do with legal issues.
I thought medical hardware had to go through stringent approval processes with health authorities?
This is just an awful design in general. An auxiliary control system for your body should be much more resistant against electronic interference and self contained to prevent this kind of vulnerability.
Yeah, interfering with people's medical equipment is bad but whoever put such trash on the market should also get a prison sentence if it lead to harm.
Your proposed law would increase the price of treatment and lead to more deaths.
Not in civilised countries.
Yeah this is the case. You have to have a phone from a list of approved devices which is not very long.
In fairness, diabetics should be carrying standalone blood glucose monitors as a backup. You never know what could happen to your phone.