>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 h

>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.