3 ms·
That's all fine and dandy until the moment where you self-medicate, take your car, faint at the wheel and kill a family of four.
by jcelerier 5y ago
That's all fine and dandy until the moment where you self-medicate, take your car, faint at the wheel and kill a family of four.
- somnic 5y agoI mean, isn't that just status quo bias? You can come up with a story for how anything will result in negative consequences. If we didn't have medical gatekeeping you could just as easily come up with a story about how requiring people to get approval from a doctor to treat themselves could result in someone fainting at the wheel and killing a family of four, and it'd be just as meaningless as this.
- renewiltord 5y agoThat’s all fine and dandy until, lacking medication, you faint at the wheel and kill a family of five. Five being greater than four it is clearly worse not to allow for self-medication.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jcelerier 5y agoBut it's incredibly more likely than if left to themselves, people will self-medicate, and not necessarily with due research beforehand. To give an example: in my country, 56% of people have already medicated with homeopathy (a known scam for decades). Imagine if they could just buy any other medication, which unlike homeopathy, could have strong secondary effects ? Those 56% people who have "illnesses" with very benign symptoms that for most cases cures itself in a couple days without any drugs (homeopathy is used for anything, common cold, headaches, itches, you name it ...), now they're potentially taking much more dangerous meds. So it's clearly not equivalent as 56% of people definitely don't have "faint-at-the-wheel" symptoms today.
- renewiltord 5y agoThe existence of side-effects affects how many people will take the drug. I don’t think the zero side-effect situation illustrates anything any more than giving away your product for free tells you how many people will buy it.