The last batch of hearing aid batteries came in a childproof package that I had never before seen. I had hell getting to them and said I would simply switch brands next time.
Well, most all of them have this armor on them now it seems.
Don't know the reason for the switch, but I'm not happy.
Yeah, these days eggs come in a flimsy recycled-cardboard carton, and batteries come in packaging that requires a chainsaw to open.
My buddy, who is in VA hospice, uses VA-provided hearing aids with replaceable batteries. I have to help him with cutting open the hearing-aid battery packaging with a pair of scissors every couple of weeks, just so he can get the batteries out of the package.
That's one of the reasons I bought a pair of hearing aids with RECHARGEABLE batteries instead of REPLACEABLE batteries.
I understand the reasons the battery manufacturers make the packaging of their products so difficult. They are trying to make sure that little kids can't open the package and swallow the batteries. That's a worthwhile goal, but if satisfying that goal renders the batteries unusable by the folks that need them - people who are VERY unlikely to have little kids around - is that "safety feature" really worth the additional problems it creates?
Statistically speaking, how many little kids actually swallow these batteries? The frequency of this happening is incredibly small. BUT the liability for the battery manufacturers in the rare case that it does happen is HUGE. So, to CYA, the battery manufacturers make the packaging all but IMPOSSIBLE for the end-users to open.
Besides, is swallowing a new, fully charged battery significantly worse than swallowing one that has been used and has no more charge? I mean, the danger is the chemicals, not the charge, right? And is a kid more likely to open a package and eat one - or to pick up a dead one lying loose somewhere?
So, what will they do to prevent THAT? Design packaging that will only let you get a new one out one end if you push an old one into the other end?
IMO, it seems like this is just one more example of our current obsession with producing a "100% safe" world - i.e. valuing "safety" above everything else - even when it hamstrings common sense and people living their best lives.
The sad fact is there will never be a 100% safe world and even if life were somehow made totally safe, we'd all STILL end up dead.
JMO, and YMMV....
