4 ms·

I like the idealized version of putting whatever I want in my body before I die in an attempt to extend my life. There are definitely snake oil salesmen out th

by mylons 8y ago

I like the idealized version of putting whatever I want in my body before I die in an attempt to extend my life. There are definitely snake oil salesmen out there, and I do believe there is a place for the FDA to get in their way as much as possible.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
There seems to be an overlapping conflict area between the freedom to be ripped off and the freedom to control my own medical care. I'd rather have more control over my life than less, even if it means there's risk. At least it's my choice which risk, not someone else’s.
- Nursie 8y ago
  The converse to this, though, is that there are people who do get duped, and they get ripped off for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Especially where, for instance, there are sick kids involved. You see campaigns in newspapers and on social media, for donations so that some poor, dying child with untreatable cancer can be flown to Texas or Mexico, and they just have to have $150K for the treatment and drugs they need. They aren't medically trained and they can't spot the scam - hell, they don't want to spot the scam, they want their child to live, and who can blame them? They've already taken out as much debt as they can afford. Their families and close friends have probably done the same, and they're campaigning for the general public to chip in too, for a treatment that's effectively a fraud. It's heartbreaking. This is where we need someone to step in and prevent the behaviour.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Education is a partial cure for this, as well as the law pursuing thieves. But there will always be scams no matter how many laws you pass or protections put on people.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      Yes there will always be scams. That doesn't mean we should leave the field wide open and encourage scams, or create a legal landscape in which it is difficult to detect and close down such things. Education is probably not any sort of cure for this - the scams are often run by educated, authoritative people who offer a fake lifeline to parents who are almost beyond hope and who are certainly not rationally evaluating the options. There is a role for authorities here.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >I'd rather have more control over my life than less, Yes but you're speaking as if the FDA removes control over your life in a way that a snake oil salesman doesn't. They both remove control, one explicitly and the other through trickery. In that case since one is ostensibly designed to protect you and one is explicitly designed to harm you I'm going to side with giving the FDA discretion.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I've been tricked before, and I've been cornered by the government into an action I didn't want. Which one do you think I am able to avoid in the future? The government has real "power" over you, a con-artist only get's you once. If you want the FDA to protect you, fine, then the laws should allow you to get protection. But they shouldn't be designed to "force" me to accept protection... that sounds like the local mafia.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
      >Which one do you think I am able to avoid in the future? We're talking about the terminally ill here. Most of the time they have no future. >The government has real "power" over you, a con-artist only get's you once. Again, this is the terminally ill. In this case the con-artist only needs to get you once and he's going to take everything you own. >If you want the FDA to protect you, fine, then the laws should allow you to get protection. But they shouldn't be designed to "force" me to accept protection... that sounds like the local mafia. It's about preventing new bottoms in society. Let's say we allow the poor to sell their kidneys. We could say: 'well it's purely optional, if you don't like it don't sell your kidney' but we're really ignoring all the externalities of creating a new market. Since those willing to breach this new bottom now have more cash, maybe payday loans will require kidneys as collateral, maybe rates will go up for those who don't want to sell their kidney. In that case you have definitely negatively affected all sorts of people who are making the choice not to sell their kidney. The collective decision of society, to allow this new bottom has transformed the circumstances of everyone in society, not just those who go to the new bottom. That's why we must look at that bottom and collectively evaluate whether the costs are worth it. To bring it back to right-to-try, it seems that 'early access treatment' is probably going to be plagued by some of the same problems we see currently in 'early access gaming' - it's expensive and glitch-ridden, the landscape can change without notice and developers feel no rush to actually finish the game since they're getting paid anyways. Does that seem like a bottom we want to allow in healthcare? I say no.

by mylons 8y ago

RobertRoberts 8y ago

There seems to be an overlapping conflict area between the freedom to be ripped off and the freedom to control my own medical care. I'd rather have more control over my life than less, even if it means there's risk. At least it's my choice which risk, not someone else’s.

Nursie 8y ago
The converse to this, though, is that there are people who do get duped, and they get ripped off for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Especially where, for instance, there are sick kids involved. You see campaigns in newspapers and on social media, for donations so that some poor, dying child with untreatable cancer can be flown to Texas or Mexico, and they just have to have $150K for the treatment and drugs they need. They aren't medically trained and they can't spot the scam - hell, they don't want to spot the scam, they want their child to live, and who can blame them? They've already taken out as much debt as they can afford. Their families and close friends have probably done the same, and they're campaigning for the general public to chip in too, for a treatment that's effectively a fraud. It's heartbreaking. This is where we need someone to step in and prevent the behaviour.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  Education is a partial cure for this, as well as the law pursuing thieves. But there will always be scams no matter how many laws you pass or protections put on people.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    Yes there will always be scams. That doesn't mean we should leave the field wide open and encourage scams, or create a legal landscape in which it is difficult to detect and close down such things. Education is probably not any sort of cure for this - the scams are often run by educated, authoritative people who offer a fake lifeline to parents who are almost beyond hope and who are certainly not rationally evaluating the options. There is a role for authorities here.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>I'd rather have more control over my life than less, Yes but you're speaking as if the FDA removes control over your life in a way that a snake oil salesman doesn't. They both remove control, one explicitly and the other through trickery. In that case since one is ostensibly designed to protect you and one is explicitly designed to harm you I'm going to side with giving the FDA discretion.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I've been tricked before, and I've been cornered by the government into an action I didn't want. Which one do you think I am able to avoid in the future? The government has real "power" over you, a con-artist only get's you once. If you want the FDA to protect you, fine, then the laws should allow you to get protection. But they shouldn't be designed to "force" me to accept protection... that sounds like the local mafia.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >Which one do you think I am able to avoid in the future? We're talking about the terminally ill here. Most of the time they have no future. >The government has real "power" over you, a con-artist only get's you once. Again, this is the terminally ill. In this case the con-artist only needs to get you once and he's going to take everything you own. >If you want the FDA to protect you, fine, then the laws should allow you to get protection. But they shouldn't be designed to "force" me to accept protection... that sounds like the local mafia. It's about preventing new bottoms in society. Let's say we allow the poor to sell their kidneys. We could say: 'well it's purely optional, if you don't like it don't sell your kidney' but we're really ignoring all the externalities of creating a new market. Since those willing to breach this new bottom now have more cash, maybe payday loans will require kidneys as collateral, maybe rates will go up for those who don't want to sell their kidney. In that case you have definitely negatively affected all sorts of people who are making the choice not to sell their kidney. The collective decision of society, to allow this new bottom has transformed the circumstances of everyone in society, not just those who go to the new bottom. That's why we must look at that bottom and collectively evaluate whether the costs are worth it. To bring it back to right-to-try, it seems that 'early access treatment' is probably going to be plagued by some of the same problems we see currently in 'early access gaming' - it's expensive and glitch-ridden, the landscape can change without notice and developers feel no rush to actually finish the game since they're getting paid anyways. Does that seem like a bottom we want to allow in healthcare? I say no.