The conversation around “right-to-repair” has taken center stage in state legislatures across the nation recently — a relatively new issue that asks policymakers to empower their constituents in the name of consumer rights.

As the name suggests, right to repair is essentially the concept that a consumer should be able to themselves fix something they legally purchased or have the third-party of their choice make repairs. Sounds good, right? On the surface it seems rational. Yet as with most things, it’s not quite that simple.

Colorado has seen several bills introduced on this topic, and has passed three of them — covering agriculture, wheelchairs, and this year, consumer electronics. There have even been conversations looking to expand this policy to other products, like medical devices. But on that front, we should think very hard before going down that road.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Establishing right-to-repair policies means a product manufacturer must share with the consumer, or a non-licensed, third-party repair shop, all the proprietary information, manuals, tools, software and anything else necessary to fix that product when it breaks.

But as technology has advanced, so too, obviously, have the products available to the public. Consider how much more complex a cell phone is than the rotary phone that preceded it; or a laptop as compared to the typewriter. You break an axe handle, that is a simple fix. But a laser-guided precision cutting instrument? Not so much. That machine is going to need a lot more instruction, sophisticated tools, knowledge of specific software, and so on, to repair it.

As we dive deeper into the weeds, right-to-repair gives rise to a number of considerations like intellectual property rights, product-engineered proprietary technology, even the years and money invested into the repair technology itself. It becomes a whole new ballgame and is one reason why many manufacturers hang on to that information, or only give it out to parties they have specifically licensed.

Still, those are navigable issues, and right-to-repair can work for some things, especially for products like your cell phone or favorite tractor. Of greater public concern is the consequence of handing out that repair information to unlicensed third parties for higher-risk products. It is for this reason not all products can be treated with the same right-to-repair mindset.

For example, I voted in favor of agricultural right-to-repair last year. Because, having grown up in a farming family, I get it. When something breaks down in the field, you do not always have the time or option of taking it 100 miles or more to the nearest licensed dealer to get it fixed.

Also, though farm equipment today is a little more complex and computerized than the ox-drawn plough of yesteryear, if I mess up attempting to repair it, I’m only hurting myself. It may delay seeding, or mean missing a window to get hay baled, or a field sprayed, or hold up a harvest — all serious problems in an industry where hours and minutes can count — but that’s the extent of it. I may have to borrow equipment from my neighbor or cranky cousin, or at worst take a (huge) financial hit, but nobody will die.

But what if what we’re talking about is not a tractor, but a high-end medical device?

Opening medical devices and equipment to unauthorized repairs could clearly have consequences far beyond those associated with iPhones, toasters, or even high-tech combines. These are highly complex machines designed to diagnose and treat people. In fact, many require expert training to conduct repairs as a way to maintain patient safety. It’s why they are heavily regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

So the next time you or a loved one get a CT scan or an MRI, for instance, you can be thankful those standards are in place and that the manufacturer is not required to hand out the service manual to an unlicensed repair shop who can offer to fix the machine at a discount.

Of course, there are the more philosophical and economic issues at play. But at the end of the day, we as lawmakers sometimes need to take a step back and separate ourselves from the purely ideological arguments and consider the real-world impacts of government action. That includes the mad rush to ensure the right to repair for everything.

Instead, we need to strike a balance and make appropriate distinctions — between, for instance, a Gameboy and an MRI machine — as it would be in Colorado’s best interest for the state legislature not to include medical devices in such legislation going forward.

Byron Pelton is a Colorado state senator representing Senate District 1 comprising several rural northeast Colorado counties.