4 ms·
There is no 100% correct answer here. As soon as you speed up the process, there are still going to be people that just miss out, and then we will have people s
by strangescript 3y ago
There is no 100% correct answer here. As soon as you speed up the process, there are still going to be people that just miss out, and then we will have people saying 4 months is too long, it should take 2 months, or let AI approve it, etc. Desperation skews perspective.
The issue with having a standardized approach to people getting experimental drugs is it opens up its own kind of mini-market unless the implication is they would be required to be free by law. And desperation is not the right mindset to make law or rational decisions.
Not trying to sound heartless, its just not as easy as saying "go faster".
- baggy_trough 3y ago[flagged]
- bruce343434 3y ago...why?
- baggy_trough 3y ago[flagged]
- bruce343434 3y agoYou are enabling quack doctors
- baggy_trough 3y agoYou are killing people under the guise of helping them.
- kortex 3y agoGiving someone Treatment X likely means they won't be pursuing Y, whether it be to avoid polypharmacy drug interactions, or simply because the patient prefers X's side effect profile to Y. Y may be the proven treatment, with worse side effects but better efficacy. Even if the doctors inform the patient "X may not work at all and may make it worse", the patient might still choose it. "What's the harm?" you say. The problem is, without any threshold, there are countless Treatment X. Every single snake oil comes out of the woodwork.
- baggy_trough 3y agoThat's better than interfering with the rights of a patient to decide what to do with their body.
- dang 3y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we've already asked you more than once not to. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- can16358p 3y agoCouldn't agree more. There is literally nothing to lose, and potential to save a life. Blocking this is effectively murder.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoDrug policy is larger than this single man. There are trade offs with different approaches here. “There is literally nothing to lose” is simply false. Restrictions against selling whatever to dying patients is because people _will_ take advantage of them and sell snake oil. If you’re okay with that, why not just let people steal from those terminally ill? My dad recently died. There are always new treatments being studied and some day one of those treatments might actually be able to cure people with the same disease. That day didn’t come early enough for my dad. That sucks but it doesn’t change the fact that drug policy is made for society as a whole and not only for my dad. This isn’t some conspiracy where a cold bureaucracy is letting people die. Sometimes your luck just runs out.
- baggy_trough 3y agoIt literally is a conspiracy where a cold bureaucracy is letting people die. That is exactly what is happening. You appear to think that it is worth letting people die to avoid quack doctors being able to sell them snake oil. I prefer to leave it up to the patient to decide. They are the ones with skin in the game.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago> It literally is a conspiracy where a cold bureaucracy is letting people die. That is exactly what is happening. It saddens me that you believe such nonsense.
- baggy_trough 3y agoCan you clarify what is nonsense about it?
- xk_id 3y agoHoly christ how did AI make it even in this conversation!?!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoOn the contrary, I personally believe it's deeply immoral to tell a dying person to "just wait, it's for your own good".