4 ms·

From the article: "Now that you know how ReCell works and all the promise it holds, here’s the bad news: it’s currently not FDA-approved for use in the US! The

From the article: "Now that you know how ReCell works and all the promise it holds, here’s the bad news: it’s currently not FDA-approved for use in the US! The website of Avita Medical claims that FDA approval is pending, but it’s not clear why it hasn’t been approved yet. Having been used successfully on thousands of patients in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia (among many other countries) should help convince the FDA that this is a proven and worthwhile medical advancement." If I had a serious disfiguring burn right now, I would want the freedom to choose for myself whether or not this is something I want to try. The principle is: it's my life, not some committee's. The responsibility for deciding what I do with my own body is ultimately mine. Our laws should reflect this fact.

merraksh 15y ago
"Committees" are in place to check whether these results are sound. Letting people use their "freedom" do to themselves as instructed by a post on the Singularity Hub may lead to some of them die, for instance of some unexpected allergy.
- voidmain 15y ago
  Why are you horrified by the idea that someone might suffer from their own mistakes, but not by the idea that they might suffer from the mistakes of others?
  - merraksh 15y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "others" here, but most drugs have side effects. AFAIK, until all of them have been sorted out, using an un-FDA-checked drug could heal your skin OR give, for instance, anaphylactic shock to all, some, or just one single patient. I understand that if "this was approved in Scotland etc." then it was already tested by some other committee. However, what if Scotland has a different list of drugs, excluding one that's approved in the US and that could lead to serious problems when used together with this spray?
- bh42222 15y ago
  I really don't like it when the government passes laws meant to protect me from myself. Obviously out of about 6+ billion people on the planet some are gullible and some make bad decisions, but I think we should have the freedom to be stupid, dangerously stupid too as long as its only dangerous to ourselves. Robin Hanson recently wrote about bicycle helmets versus climbing Everest. It turns out that the death rate for attempts to climb Everest is higher then the death rate from not wearing a bicycle helmet. But we have strong laws for helmets, yet anyone can attempt to climb Everest. Not only is the government protecting people from themselves, but it hypocritically seems to prefer to regulate average folk over well of adventurers. Think about other highly dangerous fun that is expensive and perfectly legal. This is mostly silly and a bit sad, but it has a very serious side when it comes to medical technology. The way any technology advances is by trial and error. By taking longer to put some new treatment on the market and get large scale feedback, we accomplish two things. 1. In the short term we may well save some lives. 2. In the long term we certainly slow down progress and this costs a lot of lives. We save a few in the short therm, to kill many in the long term. This would be quite rational IF someone else was forcing medial experiments on us! But when WE are willing to take the risk, the government is restricting our current freedoms, and killing our future children/grandchildren. You think I'm overstating the case? Image if modern regulatory approval was applied to penicillin? I guarantee a lot of lives with severe penicillin allergy would have been saved. I also guarantee A LOT more people would have died before penicillin finally made it to market. Image your ancestors died due to a simple bacterial infection while penicillin was being approved. But wait! That was just the delay in penicillin, now image that all other antibiotic progress was equally delayed, as it would be. Actually the delays compound so everything is delayed a little bit longer. Now can you see why taking longer to approve new treatments has a such a terrible long term cost?
  - billybob 15y ago
    I understand your sentiment, but imagine the process of choosing a very risky treatment. You sign a form saying "For reals, I know this may kill me, but I'm not going to sue you unless you do something crazy like jam a fork in my head during the procedure." That should be enough, right? But it's not. Because if things really do go badly, many patients in our sue-happy country will say "well I knew it was risky, but I didn't know HOW risky!" And the patient may win the suit - maybe justifiably, maybe not. But doctors know this and will be cautious. So that's one contraint on you getting to try whatever you want. Secondly, say things go badly and the patient is horribly hurt but not killed. Now he/she needs expensive medical treatment every day. Is the government going to pay for that? Surely your waiver can't also waive Medicare? So the government (meaning me and my tax dollars) also have some interest in not letting you undergo any procedure you want. If you could really, truly waive all your rights to recourse and help, maybe you could get any procedure you want. But if you could do that, wouldn't you be pressured to do so when you didn't want to?

merraksh 15y ago

"Committees" are in place to check whether these results are sound. Letting people use their "freedom" do to themselves as instructed by a post on the Singularity Hub may lead to some of them die, for instance of some unexpected allergy.

voidmain 15y ago
Why are you horrified by the idea that someone might suffer from their own mistakes, but not by the idea that they might suffer from the mistakes of others?
- merraksh 15y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "others" here, but most drugs have side effects. AFAIK, until all of them have been sorted out, using an un-FDA-checked drug could heal your skin OR give, for instance, anaphylactic shock to all, some, or just one single patient. I understand that if "this was approved in Scotland etc." then it was already tested by some other committee. However, what if Scotland has a different list of drugs, excluding one that's approved in the US and that could lead to serious problems when used together with this spray?
bh42222 15y ago
I really don't like it when the government passes laws meant to protect me from myself. Obviously out of about 6+ billion people on the planet some are gullible and some make bad decisions, but I think we should have the freedom to be stupid, dangerously stupid too as long as its only dangerous to ourselves. Robin Hanson recently wrote about bicycle helmets versus climbing Everest. It turns out that the death rate for attempts to climb Everest is higher then the death rate from not wearing a bicycle helmet. But we have strong laws for helmets, yet anyone can attempt to climb Everest. Not only is the government protecting people from themselves, but it hypocritically seems to prefer to regulate average folk over well of adventurers. Think about other highly dangerous fun that is expensive and perfectly legal. This is mostly silly and a bit sad, but it has a very serious side when it comes to medical technology. The way any technology advances is by trial and error. By taking longer to put some new treatment on the market and get large scale feedback, we accomplish two things. 1. In the short term we may well save some lives. 2. In the long term we certainly slow down progress and this costs a lot of lives. We save a few in the short therm, to kill many in the long term. This would be quite rational IF someone else was forcing medial experiments on us! But when WE are willing to take the risk, the government is restricting our current freedoms, and killing our future children/grandchildren. You think I'm overstating the case? Image if modern regulatory approval was applied to penicillin? I guarantee a lot of lives with severe penicillin allergy would have been saved. I also guarantee A LOT more people would have died before penicillin finally made it to market. Image your ancestors died due to a simple bacterial infection while penicillin was being approved. But wait! That was just the delay in penicillin, now image that all other antibiotic progress was equally delayed, as it would be. Actually the delays compound so everything is delayed a little bit longer. Now can you see why taking longer to approve new treatments has a such a terrible long term cost?
- billybob 15y ago
  I understand your sentiment, but imagine the process of choosing a very risky treatment. You sign a form saying "For reals, I know this may kill me, but I'm not going to sue you unless you do something crazy like jam a fork in my head during the procedure." That should be enough, right? But it's not. Because if things really do go badly, many patients in our sue-happy country will say "well I knew it was risky, but I didn't know HOW risky!" And the patient may win the suit - maybe justifiably, maybe not. But doctors know this and will be cautious. So that's one contraint on you getting to try whatever you want. Secondly, say things go badly and the patient is horribly hurt but not killed. Now he/she needs expensive medical treatment every day. Is the government going to pay for that? Surely your waiver can't also waive Medicare? So the government (meaning me and my tax dollars) also have some interest in not letting you undergo any procedure you want. If you could really, truly waive all your rights to recourse and help, maybe you could get any procedure you want. But if you could do that, wouldn't you be pressured to do so when you didn't want to?