2 ms·
Seems like patients willing to spend $300k would probably be either willing to try anything to save themselves or convinced of the efficacy of the drug they're
by pitaj 8y ago
Seems like patients willing to spend $300k would probably be either willing to try anything to save themselves or convinced of the efficacy of the drug they're purchasing.
I see no reason to prevent patients willing to spend money to try something from doing so.
- Latty 8y agoYou don't see the harm in any con man being able to put together a "therapy" that has no chance of working and charge terminally ill people a ton of money, wasting what little time they have, and taking their money from them? I think the core idea of allowing people to try experimental treatments when they are terminally ill is a good one - but without protection, it's clearly ripe for abuse. Allowing it without any precautions in place is asking for the most vulnerable people to get ripped off in tragic ways. The attitude of "any chance is better than no chance" has a ring of truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that people can pass off "no chance" as "any chance" very easily. The fact that anyone in that situation is very unlikely to be a rational actor means that they are incredibly vulnerable to cons - they are in a situation with an extreme power imbalance.
- olliej 8y agoSo you’re saying that exploiting desperate people is perfectly reasonable?