I suppose the FDA's reasoning is that they're better off having no mobility than having a device that doesn't work properly.
I don’t think the FDA is in a position to asses whether those risks versus the benefits of mobility are an appropriate trade off for any individual.
The FDA is deciding that some people should have no mobility so that others have… what, exactly?
The people who bought $65,000 chairs still could — and they’d be equally reliable. But because one person needs to use it in Alaska, all people need to pay a premium… even if they live somewhere that cold rating is completely irrelevant and adding a needless $5000-10000 to the price.
While there’s a reason to regulate for truth in advertising and basic safety, eg, not catching fire on its own, the actual regulations extend far beyond that into adjudicating personal risk management without clear benefit.
I’m not a fan of technocracy — I think people themselves know what’s best for them.
Why wouldn't the FDA, which employs experts for that exact task, assess risks? Who is in a better position?
> I think people themselves know what’s best for them.
How can anyone but an expert evaluate the safety of a powered wheelchair?
The FDA is not comparing no mobility and simply an inoperable device, the FDA is comparing no mobility vs the possible outcomes of an malfunctioning device. Like perhaps what happens if the throttle gets stuck on forward.