#WeAreNotWaiting: DIY artificial pancreas systems and challenges for the law

Rachael Dickson, Jessica Bell, Amber Dar, Laura Downey, Muireann Quigley, Victoria Moore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

66 Downloads (Pure)


Commercial hybrid closed-loop systems are becoming more readily available, yet the number of DIY artificial pancreas system (DIY APS) users continues to rise. These DIY systems have not gone through the usual regulatory approvals processes, and, thus, present a number of legal difficulties for a number of actors, including clinicians, parents who build DIY APS for their children, and users themselves. These issues have so far received insufficient attention. Due to the complex constellation of actors involved in both development of DIY APSs and in its deployment, it is not currently clear who, and to what extent, different parties might (successfully) be held liable if something goes wrong. Despite this uncertainty, unless and until clearer guidance is issued by relevant bodies, or a case appears before the courts which clarify the situation, existing legal principles apply. In this article, we examine some of these to shed light on how the law would likely be applied if harm were to result from the use of a DIY APS.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere14715
Number of pages8
JournalDiabetic Medicine
Early online date12 Oct 2021
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 12 Oct 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award in Humanities and Social Sciences 2019–2024 (Grant No. 212507/Z/18/Z), an ESRC Impact Acceleration Award, and a Quality‐related Research grant from Research England.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.


  • clinical diabetes
  • devices
  • medical law
  • patients


Dive into the research topics of '#WeAreNotWaiting: DIY artificial pancreas systems and challenges for the law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this