4 ms·

I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval,

I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval, etc. I think we can all see incidents of where some oversight process is loosened because of some legitimate desire to help some, but then you learn that the bad / incompetent / exploitative actors come out of the woodwork to test and take advantage of the changing of rules. Not even saying intentionally, but just by sheer numbers, the change you made allowed things that were being held back by (hopefully proper) regulation to now happen. Anyway, not saying that the FDA and other bodies couldn't move faster -- that is always the case. And there will always be examples of people/cases stuck in the cracks with legitimately sad situations. But I would hope that people reading such stories think about why there is a process. It's not like the FDA's purpose in life is to stop people from benefitting from new treatments. It's to prevent the flood of bad effects of companies/individuals from being able to say they offer some drug that doesn't work in the way it says it does.

jojobaskins 3y ago
If he's going to die why not give him the option to try medicine that is developed by large players with a good reputation? Weighing historical success into the process seems to make sense to me. Beta programs from Google are usually very functional...
tpmoney 3y ago
>I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval, etc. In general I feel like the sick should not be held responsible for the unintended consequences of things. The principle that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be punished applies here as well. How many suicides have happened because it took this long for the use of psychedelics and THC for the treatment of depression and PTSD to be approved (partially, in some places). How many people are suffering today, right now in pain or under the care of doctors they would otherwise leave for poor treatment but the "opioid crisis" has limited their access to the treatments they need? I've faced this problem personally more than once, and while I am sympathetic to the law of unintended consequences, I just can't be convinced that it is the duty of myself or my loved ones to suffer because someone else might abuse something. There is a balancing act to be had for sure, but any borderline case should ALWAYS err on the side of reducing the current actual harm in favor of preventing a nebulous potential future harm.

jojobaskins 3y ago

If he's going to die why not give him the option to try medicine that is developed by large players with a good reputation? Weighing historical success into the process seems to make sense to me. Beta programs from Google are usually very functional...

tpmoney 3y ago

>I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval, etc. In general I feel like the sick should not be held responsible for the unintended consequences of things. The principle that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be punished applies here as well. How many suicides have happened because it took this long for the use of psychedelics and THC for the treatment of depression and PTSD to be approved (partially, in some places). How many people are suffering today, right now in pain or under the care of doctors they would otherwise leave for poor treatment but the "opioid crisis" has limited their access to the treatments they need? I've faced this problem personally more than once, and while I am sympathetic to the law of unintended consequences, I just can't be convinced that it is the duty of myself or my loved ones to suffer because someone else might abuse something. There is a balancing act to be had for sure, but any borderline case should ALWAYS err on the side of reducing the current actual harm in favor of preventing a nebulous potential future harm.