3 ms·

We are all already dying, but we only allow doctors to prescribe drugs and other treatments to patients. Sometimes we enact regulations to protect vulnerable p

We are all already dying, but we only allow doctors to prescribe drugs and other treatments to patients. Sometimes we enact regulations to protect vulnerable people, and the more fearful somebody is about their health the more at risk they are to be preyed upon, as has been proven through history. That's why it would make sense to require such last-chance measures to be provided free of charge. This would remove the monetary incentive to swindle people. Picture a severely ill family member giving away all of their savings to some unscrupulous person that has been swindling terminal patients for years without actually helping anybody. Would you not want to prevent that?

DoesntMatter22 3y ago
Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do. There are millions of patients where they want to be on clinical trials with drug companies but cannot due to the laws. It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do That is how everything in society works. That's why we have a justice system, why the practice of medicine, law, engineering and so on requires a license, etc. Have you looked at societies where those requirements don't exist or didn't exist in the past? Is that the kind of place where you want to live? This is a subject that requires a little bit of nuance, so blanket statements aren't going to move the conversation forward. I am not advocating for absolute elimination of liberties, not for an absolute absence of regulations. > It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance. Well, I believe we have adequately explained our rationale, the sort of conditions that we think strike a reasonable balance. It's okay if we don't agree.
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    It's one thing to have restrictions on what affect other people, like criminal laws to prevent anarchy. It's another thing to tell dying cancer patients they are not allowed to try experimental drugs unless they fit your personal criteria. You want them to die rather than have a right over what treatments they are allowed to have. In effect you are claiming rights over them rather then having that right. That's pretty bad

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do. There are millions of patients where they want to be on clinical trials with drug companies but cannot due to the laws. It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance.

david-gpu 3y ago
> Regardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do That is how everything in society works. That's why we have a justice system, why the practice of medicine, law, engineering and so on requires a license, etc. Have you looked at societies where those requirements don't exist or didn't exist in the past? Is that the kind of place where you want to live? This is a subject that requires a little bit of nuance, so blanket statements aren't going to move the conversation forward. I am not advocating for absolute elimination of liberties, not for an absolute absence of regulations. > It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance. Well, I believe we have adequately explained our rationale, the sort of conditions that we think strike a reasonable balance. It's okay if we don't agree.
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  It's one thing to have restrictions on what affect other people, like criminal laws to prevent anarchy. It's another thing to tell dying cancer patients they are not allowed to try experimental drugs unless they fit your personal criteria. You want them to die rather than have a right over what treatments they are allowed to have. In effect you are claiming rights over them rather then having that right. That's pretty bad