Slashdot Mirror
HP Skin Patch May Replace Needles
Iddo Genuth writes "HP and Crospon have developed a skin patch employing microneedles that barely penetrate the skin. The microneedles can replace conventional injections and deliver drugs through the skin without causing any pain. The skin patch technology also enables delivery of several drugs by one patch and the control of dosage and of administration time for each drug. It has the potential to be safer and more efficient than injections."
Wouldn't a cheese-grater be quicker?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Ah, yes. The Vagina Dentata. Making scary Freudian dreams come to life for over 15 years!
For example: http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF051-Zarflax.jpg
If this technology triumphs, the next addition should be sensors that control the release of chemicals taking the current situation into consideration.
For example, a patch could sense the cardiac rhythm and control it chemically. Another could control blood sugar, etc.
What I imagine is someone witnessing a car accident, taking four patches from his car's medikit putting them in different parts of the hurt person and calling an ambulance while the patches stabilize the patient.
Those work through the skin. Transdermal patch
This ones enter through micro needles.
Just add alcohol.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
So this is great for stuff that you can put in subcutaneously. What about intravenous injections? What about intramuscular? Intraperitoneal? What about substances that are made up of large (several micron) particles, such as the sufur colloid injections used by nuclear medicine studies? Those could get stuck in superfine-gauge needles.
I think it's a little premature to say that this patch will replace conventional injections entirely. It might seem obvious that a patch couldn't really hope to deliver injections into the muscles without penetrating all the layers of skin, but I think it at least bears mentioning.
bla
It takes some people a while to separate "risk management" and "fault" or "blame." I can't pin down why, though I have some ideas.
I think the issue has to do with separating morally important acts with moral content from morally unimportant acts: rape has moral content, wearing this clothing or walking down that street does not.
Here's an example using street gangs: they wear different colors to identify themselves. So if you wear a red sweatshirt and the blue shirt gang shoots you, they did an immoral act, whereas your act cannot be construed as "immoral" and therefore you can't be blamed for your own shooting.
If you're going to allow such morally unimportant and therefore arbitrary factors when assigning blame, then you get a slippery slope where things that are not only unimportant but also beyond a person's control are used...such as your gender. So we find people saying, essentially, the man who raped the woman was not guilty--it was the woman's fault for A) being female and B) being around men, who cannot be expected to control themselves.
The obvious remedy is not for the law to enforce women's rights, nor for women to exercise their right as human beings to defend themselves, but rather to blame the women.
If this kind of reasoning makes sense to you, then you might be a Saudi judge.
Now, it is perfectly reasonable to advise people on risky behaviors: watch what you wear to reduce your chances of getting shot. Don't go get so drunk you can't stand up when you're all alone. Don't hold hands walking down Crime Alley in Gotham City. And so forth. But "being vulnerable" is still not an immoral act.
Some people do think it is, but they only want to justify their position of strength--alas, power doesn't justify itself, though powerful people wish it did.