4 ms·
I feel quite the opposite. I think it's similar to the problem of separation of church and state. By that I mean you shouldn't be prohibited from trying out unp
by gcheong 17y ago
I feel quite the opposite. I think it's similar to the problem of separation of church and state. By that I mean you shouldn't be prohibited from trying out unproven treatments and you can believe whatever you want, but it should be kept separate from the medical system that has been shown by scientific inquiry to be effective.
- KirinDave 17y agoOkay, man. I appreciate this "church and state" argument, but we're talking about medicine here. This isn't people's souls at stake, it's their immediate health and lives. It's one thing to limit what people put into their body, I'm nod advocating that. It's another entirely to limit what people claim. People can claim anything can cure anything, and then someone who isn't making a fully informed decision then puts their lives at risk, and in the process loses cash to someone who simply made a statement and offered a service. In many other industries, this is okay. The market tends to detect bullshitters and avoid them. Usually it's only a few over-eager suckers who lose some cash and warn everyone else. But in the case of medicine, transactions are done not only in people's money but also with their health as currency. Asking for the market to correct for this asks for an incredible amount of misery and death to occur before a treatment can be identified. Ethically, this seems like a very bad position to take.