No way in hell I would ever install a computer in my body, not even a pacemaker. I would rather shrivel up and return to nature than get rekt by a hardware/software mistake.
Although I draw my line a bit further down (and am pro-cybernetics for various reasons), I can see why invasive augmentation is where some people do. I don't plan on surviving some treatable cancers if I get diagnosed simply because merely existing as a worn out husk from the strain of the treatment is not worth the burden on my family and myself. Other cancers have a treatment that is worth trying to fight through. Managing a pacemaker is just not a fight they want to have.
Many people don't have a reference point for what it's like to not be afraid of death.
Is this a good example of the philosophy of "My Body, My Choice" that should pervade health care today?
If you critically read the thread, my astonishment is the stated reason: a distrust in the technology. There's nothing "informed" about that choice, especially if you're looking at the data (I'm not sure how else you can be informed about such a choice).
Getting a pacemaker is also arguably NOT an invasive surgery. Many people who get them leave the hospital the same day. As far as emergency surgeries go, it's very low on the ladder. A routine appendectomy is more invasive.
However, what baffles me is that the problem you see with a pacemaker is the fact that it could malfunction and kill you. Is that the right understanding? And if so, why is that worse than your body malfunctioning and dieing on its own?
The doctor came into my room, gave me the option of getting an ICD implant. My first 4000 thoughts were hell no. He explained that otherwise I could just drop dead at any moment, and in all likelihood I wouldn't be the 1/1000 that survived. And if I were to survive I might just be a vegetable next time. I very hesitantly accepted after a lot of thought. BTW this is my 20s that this happened.
Since then more than 1 person has died due to a software error with my device, and I have not been shocked once. I get "patched" all the time to rule out certain errors. But the odds of me dying without the device are still much higher than the odds of my dying with it. More importantly I fully believe the standard of care / investigation into my problems have increased significantly because I opted into having the device. Is that fair? Not really. Is that realistic? Yep, Boston Scientific wants data to make better devices.
I'm in a country where the device was free to install, all care after is entirely free, which definitely helped make the decision. But if there's never a situation in which you'd consider such a compromise I'd say you've probably never woken up in the ICU with no memory of the past 20 days.