3 ms·
Exactly, a treatment should be free until approved by FDA. The team would try to make the treatment an experiment useful for science. They would have no incent
by joak 3y ago
Exactly, a treatment should be free until approved by FDA.
The team would try to make the treatment an experiment useful for science. They would have no incentives to kill prematurely patients that would otherwise have lived longer. They would work in good faith.
Disclaimer: I actually had had a treatment (surgery) not yet approved, it saved my foot from amputation. This was in Europe.
The doctor was adding me to the long lists of patients he saved. He also trained other doctors to perform the surgery. Eventually the procedure was approved by FDA and in Europe. I'm glad to have contributed.
Before going on that I read all the articles related to my problem (many thanks to sci-hub) and then send a email to the surgeon. He said "I can indeed help you" (best day of my life) I didn't pay anything (only the plane tickets to get where he was)
- citruscomputing 3y agoIt should also be free after it's approved by the FDA.
- chroma 3y agoHow would that work? Would the government use money from taxes to pay the drug companies for their costs, plus some profit margin?
- joak 3y agoBefore approval it's research, it's an investment. When in developing phase it's normal not to make money. After approval it's the health insurance or the patient that pay. In countries like Singapore or France the taxes pay so it's "free" (actually it's an "insurance" backed by the govt)