4 ms·

It does some anomalous that some states are moving toward assisted dying which (I don't personally agree with for complex reasons), which is essentially a very

It does some anomalous that some states are moving toward assisted dying which (I don't personally agree with for complex reasons), which is essentially a very humane stance, and yet elderly people or those who are terminally ill cannot, it seems, waive their "safety right" under law and consent to be trial subjects for experimental drugs with high risks.

unsupp0rted 2y ago
In Canada there's assisted dying for people with mental illness: perfectly physically healthy people, who might even decide to live a fair bit longer if they felt they were contributing to saving lives by allowing testing.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you're even suggesting here. First of all, according to the canadian government[1], euthanasia is not currently permitted in cases only involving mental illness. It's been delayed twice already, currently until 2027, and may be delayed further or scrapped entirely in the future for all we know. Second, what would they be testing? Drugs for their condition? That wouldn't apply to the type of situation necessary for euthanasia under Canadian law[2]: >To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must: 1. have a serious illness, disease or disability 2. be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed 3. experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable If there was an experimental treatment that might actually help them, these criteria would not apply. If you're suggesting safety testing of drugs for other illnesses, that's extremely unethical and I seriously doubt the medical community would be willing to do it, even with consent. And I seriously doubt a number of people large enough to give meaningful results would consent in the first place. It's also of dubious usefulness because any treatment intended for disease X might have its safety profile and risk/benefit analysis altered by the presence or non-presence of X. 1: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying/legislation-canada.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi... 2: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html#a2 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi...
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    However in the Netherlands it is permitted
y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
Isn't this what the "Right to try" laws are designed for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law Although it does seem like many companies are still not allowing this. I don't know much on the topic and I'm not sure why (financial reasons perhaps?) they'd refuse, but I've always found it absurd that we can poison ourselves to death (literally) with all sorts of substances legally, but experimentation with life saving methods are restricted. I've seen some very strange arguments against the experimentation like "well they could die sooner!" - yeah, but that's up to the person to decide, just like all other decisions they've made preceding it. A patient has the right not to choose any treatment at all, that could definitely make the die sooner. Why is this where the line is drawn for some people? It seems arbitrary.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  I wasn't aware of this progress. Thanks for the link. It's definitely an ethical hot potato. My concern would always be around pressure, and being sure that a choice really is a choice.
- mlyle 2y ago
  The research teams want to get their drug approved so it can help many people. This means proving it is safe and effective. Unfortunately, using it in a non-study context risks a whole lot of confusion-- if the marginal, near-death case that wouldn't qualify for your trial dies in a weird way, what do you do? Not to mention that prior to approval, there are no economies of scale in production.

unsupp0rted 2y ago

In Canada there's assisted dying for people with mental illness: perfectly physically healthy people, who might even decide to live a fair bit longer if they felt they were contributing to saving lives by allowing testing.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
I'm not sure what you're even suggesting here. First of all, according to the canadian government[1], euthanasia is not currently permitted in cases only involving mental illness. It's been delayed twice already, currently until 2027, and may be delayed further or scrapped entirely in the future for all we know. Second, what would they be testing? Drugs for their condition? That wouldn't apply to the type of situation necessary for euthanasia under Canadian law[2]: >To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must: 1. have a serious illness, disease or disability 2. be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed 3. experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable If there was an experimental treatment that might actually help them, these criteria would not apply. If you're suggesting safety testing of drugs for other illnesses, that's extremely unethical and I seriously doubt the medical community would be willing to do it, even with consent. And I seriously doubt a number of people large enough to give meaningful results would consent in the first place. It's also of dubious usefulness because any treatment intended for disease X might have its safety profile and risk/benefit analysis altered by the presence or non-presence of X. 1: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying/legislation-canada.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi... 2: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html#a2 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi...
- daedrdev 2y ago
  However in the Netherlands it is permitted

y-c-o-m-b 2y ago

Isn't this what the "Right to try" laws are designed for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law Although it does seem like many companies are still not allowing this. I don't know much on the topic and I'm not sure why (financial reasons perhaps?) they'd refuse, but I've always found it absurd that we can poison ourselves to death (literally) with all sorts of substances legally, but experimentation with life saving methods are restricted. I've seen some very strange arguments against the experimentation like "well they could die sooner!" - yeah, but that's up to the person to decide, just like all other decisions they've made preceding it. A patient has the right not to choose any treatment at all, that could definitely make the die sooner. Why is this where the line is drawn for some people? It seems arbitrary.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
I wasn't aware of this progress. Thanks for the link. It's definitely an ethical hot potato. My concern would always be around pressure, and being sure that a choice really is a choice.
mlyle 2y ago
The research teams want to get their drug approved so it can help many people. This means proving it is safe and effective. Unfortunately, using it in a non-study context risks a whole lot of confusion-- if the marginal, near-death case that wouldn't qualify for your trial dies in a weird way, what do you do? Not to mention that prior to approval, there are no economies of scale in production.