The final two chapters of Self-Tracking by Neff and Nafus provide a porthole into which we can view the possible future of self tracking and its future applications. It seems like one thing is for certain, there are more questions than answers when it comes to the usefulness of self tracking in the healthcare field because self tracking technologies are evolving faster than they are.
Healthcare fields aren't exactly taking self tracking applications and devices seriously, and they have a reason to be wary. Neff and Nafus gave a small example of this when they gave the story of app uChek being removed because it failed to meet the FDAs regulatory criteria. An ethical issue within the self tracking world is the collection of data from users and who it belongs to. Does it belong to the user who partook in the physical actions, or does it belong to the company that provided the means to collect the data? This ethical dilemma showed its ugly head when Hugo Campus had to legally fight for access to data collected by his own defibrillator.
If events such as the one that Hugo Campus endured continue to pop up, it could spell for a very grim future regarding self tracking.
Works Cited:
Neff, Gina, and Dawn Nafus. Self-Tracking. Cambridge: MIT, 2016.
Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment