4 ms·
I realize that the FDA serves a purpose, but in dire situations I think anyone should be able to take any drug if they sign a document stating they will hold no
by macinjosh 7y ago
I realize that the FDA serves a purpose, but in dire situations I think anyone should be able to take any drug if they sign a document stating they will hold no one liable for adverse affects of a drug that might have chance of saving their lives. Why does one have to follow the state's one-size-fits-all rules when their life is at stake and any potential harm is limited to themselves?
- odyssey7 7y agoIt’s an interesting question what aspects of human behavior the government should be able to regulate. A couple of points beside that are 1) this would incentivize drug companies to use desperate patients as a low-cost way of screening drug candidates — “free” data with all liability signed away. And 2) the externalities of a person being injured can be huge, so the possible harm isn’t really limited to that patient. Edit: With some reasonable guardrails, I think “right to try” makes sense. I personally don’t know what the guardrails should be.
- narogab 7y agoBecause when those adverse effects permanently disable those people the government will likely at some point have to pay for their care.