> If it can save 40k lives per year it’s in any case a no-brainer. This is a pretty big assumption without any evidence to support it. There are many solution

> If it can save 40k lives per year it’s in any case a no-brainer. This is a pretty big assumption without any evidence to support it. There are many solutions that can potentially save even more lives, such as treatments and cures for heart disease and cancer. However, I do not see anyone arguing to test these potentially life saving miracles on random people who happen to be walking down the street, like we are with autonomous vehicles. Certainly, if we relaxed standards on testing cancer and heart disease treatments, we'd rapidly accelerate the development of life-saving cures. The more people we test them on, the better data we'll have to build better models, much like with autonomous driving. If it can save 500k lives per year from cancer and heart disease, would revoking the need for informed consent to test these potential cures be a no-brainer?