31 ms·
Why are safeguards necessary? They're going to die anyway, letting them try literal snake oil isn't hurting anything. Unless they were so enamored with the sna
by Johnny555 3y ago
Why are safeguards necessary? They're going to die anyway, letting them try literal snake oil isn't hurting anything.
Unless they were so enamored with the snake oil treatment that they ignored a legitimate treatment that have been effective.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- flir 3y agoIf there's a legitimate effective treatment available, they're no longer terminal cases, are they? I suppose you could hypothesize someone refusing treatment until its too late then trying the snake oil...
- Johnny555 3y agoThis article is about a doctor with incurable cancer who was able to find a experimental treatment that so far seems to be helping. If instead he had been focusing on magic magnetic bracelets with no hope of helping, he may have not have tried this science based treatment.
- flir 3y agoI've thought about this for a couple of days because I thought it deserved serious attention, and I see your point, but a terminally ill patient choosing "the wrong one" between two possible treatment paths when neither of them is likely to work seems like such a corner case that I don't think it should block, or even modify, "right to try" laws. (And on further thought, magnetic bracelets aren't currently banned, so it seems like a bit of a straw man. I can't think of a woo treatment that could potentially be unlocked by a right-to-try law. I think they're all already available - Steve Jobs' certainly was, to take one famous example).