Medical devices increasingly include software components, which facilitate remote patient monitoring. The introduction of software into previously analog medical devices, as well as innovation in software-driven devices, may introduce new safety concerns – all the more so when such devices are used in patients’ homes, well outside of traditional health care delivery settings. We review four key mechanisms for the post-market surveillance of medical devices in the United States: (1) Post-market trials and registries; (2) manufacturing plant inspections; (3) adverse event reporting; and (4) recalls. We use comprehensive regulatory data documenting adverse events and recalls to describe trends in the post-market safety of medical devices, based on the presence or absence of software. Overall, devices with software are associated with more reported adverse events (i.e. individual injuries and deaths) and more high-severity recalls, compared to devices without software. However, in subgroup analyses of individual medical specialties, we consistently observe differences in recall probability but do not consistently detect differences in adverse events. These results suggest that adverse events are a noisy signal of post-market safety and not necessarily a reliable predictor of subsequent recalls. As patients and health care providers weigh the benefits of new remote monitoring technologies against potential safety issues, they should not assume that safety concerns will be readily identifiable through existing post-market surveillance mechanisms. Both health care providers and developers of remote patient monitoring technologies should therefore consider how they might proactively ensure that newly introduced remote patient monitoring technologies work safely and as intended.

As technological improvements advance, the use of remote monitoring is among the new diagnostic tools that have become a growing part of medical care delivery. But reliance on technologies also challenges the traditional liability schemes that exist to deter negligent physician behavior and compensate injured patients. Liability can arise at each point in a remote monitoring system, from when information is gathered by a device, to when it is processed by an algorithm, and, finally, used by a physician. This chapter explores how different types of liability might arise for device manufacturers and physicians at each of these stages, outlining the main legal rules and complicating factors.

In the years following FDA approval of direct-to-consumer, genetic-health-risk/DTCGHR testing, millions of people in the US have sent their DNA to companies to receive personal genome health risk information without physician or other learned medical professional involvement. In Personal Genome Medicine, Michael J. Malinowski examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of this development. Drawing from the past and present of medicine in the US, Malinowski applies law, policy, public and private sector practices, and governing norms to analyze the commercial personal genome sequencing and testing sectors and to assess their impact on the future of US medicine. Written in relatable and accessible language, the book also proposes regulatory reforms for government and medical professionals that will enable technological advancements while maintaining personal and public health standards.

In the years following FDA approval of direct-to-consumer, genetic-health-risk/DTCGHR testing, millions of people in the US have sent their DNA to companies to receive personal genome health risk information without physician or other learned medical professional involvement. In Personal Genome Medicine, Michael J. Malinowski examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of this development. Drawing from the past and present of medicine in the US, Malinowski applies law, policy, public and private sector practices, and governing norms to analyze the commercial personal genome sequencing and testing sectors and to assess their impact on the future of US medicine. Written in relatable and accessible language, the book also proposes regulatory reforms for government and medical professionals that will enable technological advancements while maintaining personal and public health standards.

In the years following FDA approval of direct-to-consumer, genetic-health-risk/DTCGHR testing, millions of people in the US have sent their DNA to companies to receive personal genome health risk information without physician or other learned medical professional involvement. In Personal Genome Medicine, Michael J. Malinowski examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of this development. Drawing from the past and present of medicine in the US, Malinowski applies law, policy, public and private sector practices, and governing norms to analyze the commercial personal genome sequencing and testing sectors and to assess their impact on the future of US medicine. Written in relatable and accessible language, the book also proposes regulatory reforms for government and medical professionals that will enable technological advancements while maintaining personal and public health standards.

The 21st Century Cures Act preserved the FDA’s authority to regulate several categories of software that incorporate artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) techniques. The agency’s draft guidance on Clinical Decision Support Software proposed an approach for regulating CDS software and shed light on the FDA’s approach to genomic software. This chapter explains why the FDA’s proposed approach to regulating software is unlikely to preempt failure-to-warn suits. It then turns to design-defect suits, focusing on adaptive AI/ML software that continues to redesign itself throughout the product lifecycle. How will common defenses work when the state of the art is in the robotic “mind” of an AI/ML algorithm? We also reflect on broader impacts on patients, clinicians, software developers, and healthcare systems and ask whether the FDA is the “right” regulator to address the unresolved ethical and medical practice concerns that surround this software.

The United States does not yet have a comprehensive legal regime to manage germline editing. However, the US Congress, which appropriates funds annually to support the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has enacted a rider that prevents the agency from using those funds to receive applications for clinical trials. In this manner, Congress has imposed a de facto moratorium that prevents scientists from creating children with modified genomes. In most of the fifty states, scientists remain free to edit human gametes and embryos in the lab as long as they mind federal regulations governing research.In the future, Congress and state legislatures may ban germline editing, in whole or in part. Such bans may face legal challenges. To be sure, the United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and is not bound by its requirement that parties respect scientific freedom. Nor does the US Constitution expressly state a right to engage in scientific research. However, some academics argue that such a right can be derived from the First Amendment. Further, those who cannot conceive a healthy child without germline editing may claim that a ban violates their constitutional right to privacy.