4 ms·

>Okay - but what happens when your doctor is getting bribed to say you're dying to get you to try expensive experimental drugs with no evidence of working? You

>Okay - but what happens when your doctor is getting bribed to say you're dying to get you to try expensive experimental drugs with no evidence of working? You might as well be saying "what happens if some improbable risk of X exists in this very unusual context". That's existence, especially in complex and fraught situations. You can't completely regulate it away and especially not if the regulations themselves can cause much greater harm in the much, much more probable situation of patients who are already dying being willing, as human beings with autonomy, to try something personally risky. Deregulation shouldn't and doesn't depend on the world being one of everyone being logical and always having accurate information. Those two conditions don't exist in the human world at all times, period. Furthermore, the exact same problem applies to regulators and legislators as well, whose poorly reasoned decisions can cause broad harm too. Making a lack of perfect information and attendant risk into the key basis for onerous regulations is bad reasoning with sometimes grotesque consequences, particularly in situations where the regulations are known to cause suffering to people in extremes (as is the case with denying risky treatments to those who are in any case at death's door.. Also, very basic but obvious: anyone in the extreme situation of having a doctor suggest a very experimental treatment can go and get a second opinion from another doctor.

noobermin 2y ago
This isn't an improbable situation. They literally mentioned the Sackler family, which is a real world example of corruption is medicine of the type they're talking about.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  The Sackler's company bribed and "financially encouraged" doctors into over-prescribing opioids to millions of people who weren't necessarily mortally ill and with lesser individual risk of those people dying from these prescriptions. It's a largely different clinical and treatment situation from specific cases in which people are genuinely, terminally ill and a genuine though dangerous treatment option exists that might save their very lives. The Sackler case is a valid and powerful criticism of medical/pharma dishonesty, but it's extremely unfair to desperate patients that it be used to prevent them from having the autonomy over their own bodies and literal chance at life that they might legally be allowed to pursue. Also worth noting that even in the market for prescription opioids, the Sackler case has more recently been used to wrongfully prevent patients who are in deep pain from obtaining a drug that provides needed relief despite its addiction dangers. So even here, obsessions about malpractice are hurting legitimate use.

noobermin 2y ago

This isn't an improbable situation. They literally mentioned the Sackler family, which is a real world example of corruption is medicine of the type they're talking about.

southernplaces7 2y ago
The Sackler's company bribed and "financially encouraged" doctors into over-prescribing opioids to millions of people who weren't necessarily mortally ill and with lesser individual risk of those people dying from these prescriptions. It's a largely different clinical and treatment situation from specific cases in which people are genuinely, terminally ill and a genuine though dangerous treatment option exists that might save their very lives. The Sackler case is a valid and powerful criticism of medical/pharma dishonesty, but it's extremely unfair to desperate patients that it be used to prevent them from having the autonomy over their own bodies and literal chance at life that they might legally be allowed to pursue. Also worth noting that even in the market for prescription opioids, the Sackler case has more recently been used to wrongfully prevent patients who are in deep pain from obtaining a drug that provides needed relief despite its addiction dangers. So even here, obsessions about malpractice are hurting legitimate use.