> I agree with that evaluation, but I also think mavericks should be allowed to try curing their own colorblindness (assuming they had informed consent and paid

> I agree with that evaluation, but I also think mavericks should be allowed to try curing their own colorblindness (assuming they had informed consent and paid for the therapy themselves). I mean, what's stopping you? This guy cured his own lactose intolerance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY But I'm guessing — in part because you say "paid for the therapy" — that you don't really mean "should be allowed to cure their own colorblindness"; but rather "should be allowed to buy a colorblindness treatment from a vendor of such" or maybe "should be allowed to request a prescription of a colorblindness treatment from a doctor who acquires it from a vendor of such." And you're already also allowed to do that — in theory. The FDA doesn't care about people buying medical treatments. It cares about companies selling them. Because companies are profit-focused, and the quickest way to money in medicine is to lie. For you to be able to get what you want, there'd have to be an intermediate category that stops just shy of the current "FDA-approved medical therapy" category. For a treatment to qualify for this category, it would still have to pass both safety and efficacy studies. The only thing that would be different, is that the FDA wouldn't weigh the safety vs. the efficacy of the treatment at the end; but instead just put an absolute minimum threshold on both safety and efficacy, and leave the prescriber to determine whether the safety risk outweighs the efficacy. But think about that word "prescriber." This would certainly allow people motivated to do this to go to their doctors and ask for such treatments specifically. But it would also enable doctors to choose such therapies for their patients, without the patient being previously aware of the treatment option. And doctors can be bought. (See: doctors prescribing on-patent drugs when equally-effective generics are available; doctors adding on unnecessary adjunct therapies because a sales rep convinced them they should "give it a try"; etc.) Do you want to live in a world where there's no ability for regulatory bodies to set a safety:efficacy-ratio threshold on a doctor's ability to prescribe drugs to patients? A world where a (bad) doctor might prescribe a drug that has a huge risk for very little chance of success, and all they have to do is put a consent form in front of the patient for the huge risk — without even having to explain the low-efficacy part? (Honest question. Some people might very well prefer such a world.)