> Why in these stories is the patient always a researcher or married to a researcher in the field? Because, usually, listening to a patient's great ideas is a

> Why in these stories is the patient always a researcher or married to a researcher in the field? Because, usually, listening to a patient's great ideas is a waste of time. This of course is not the case, when the patient has provable knowledge that the doctors have to admit might surpass their own knowledge. > [treatments] be totally experimental but facing the end most would take experimental over nothing. Sure, except for that the relatives might sue a doctor after a patient's death. In court you have a much stronger position when the patient obviously had the knowledge to really understand the risks of some treatment. Last but not least: Experimental therapies are much, much more expensive than standardized ones. You basically have to check all parameters permanently while with standardized therapies you just follow a protocol that dictates what to look out for.