4 ms·

> what's the worst that can happen? The patient dies from complications of the drug's use before the cancer.

post_break 9mo ago
If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  bigPharma doesn't care about that. They care about the publicity of their drug killing someone faster than the cancer.
  - ineedaj0b 9mo ago
    No. No no no. Big Pharma needs good data. And they have annoying FDAs/whatever-regulations-body slowing them down. If you have a serious disease they might not mind you taking it. But if you have a serious disease plus your kidneys have already shutdown - w/e drug won’t save you. The death counts as a negative. “Let me take it anyway” well fine but it’s not some huge conspiracy.
- WJW 9mo ago
  It's not just those two choices though. It could be "6 months in relative comfort" and "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious". Or anything in between. Just saying. Medical guidelines are there for a reason and are often, as they say in the military, "written in blood".
  - tw04 9mo ago
    > "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious" They aren’t going to know if it does that until they give it to a human in the first place. The only difference in giving it now is they lack a control group.
  - investinwaffles 9mo ago
    Having seen the last ten days of pancreatic cancer, there isn’t really a difference with what you’re describing.
    - WJW 9mo ago
      Yes I (sadly) know. I commiserate with your loss.
  - magospietato 9mo ago
    Having seen a family member die absolutely horrifically in a matter of weeks due to late-diagnosed pancreatic cancer, I'd consider suicide if I got the same diagnosis.
    - WJW 9mo ago
      Yes I (sadly) know. I commiserate with your loss. Still wouldn't let my loved ones try untested treatments though, especially if it buys only weeks of extra lifetime. The potential costs are too high.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- kulahan 9mo ago
  I found this green block in my back yard. It killed a dog because he was mostly cancer I think. Anyways just sign over hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks! This will probably ki—er, cure you. What have you got to lose?
- serf 9mo ago
  >If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option. you're not being creative enough. I agree with compassionate use cases, but be creative here : some drugs can create deaths much more miserable than the controlled burn of a 6 month descent into hospice care surrounded by family and loved ones. 6 months to live versus a possible supportive drug regiment with the side effects being constant pain until you slowly bleed out through your eyes after total sensory lock-in -- easy a choice to make? not for me.
- BobaFloutist 9mo ago
  Fine, what if the drug causes a violent psychotic break and you harm your loved ones? What if some weird interaction sensitizes your nerves, and you spend your last weeks in incredible pain, begging to die? Not only would that suck for you, it would, again, affect your loved ones. It would also cause distress to the nurses that cared for you and the doctor(s) that administered it to you; remember, they don't just have to convince you, they have to convince medical professionals that this wouldn't be violating their code of ethics.
dyauspitr 9mo ago
In a purely rational world who cares. 4 months is not all that far away from 6 months and with cancer you’d probably prefer to not be alive for those last two months anyway. We should be willing to do Hail Marys with 5-10% chances of success rather than doing absolutely nothing.
- kulahan 9mo ago
  You would destroy any inheritance your family might get, or which could be donated to a cause saving a dozen lives, over a 5% chance you don’t die from cancer specifically, which might make you feel unbearably bad until you DO die? Like much worse than you already feel? That’s insanely irrational. Edit: and all of this is before the psychological implications of knowing your time is almost up. People would rather have burnt skin removed by a painful grinder than painless maggots because bugs and being eaten are so psychologically scarring most people won’t even consider it until they experience the pain of the flesh grinder work. People won’t think rationally anyways until it’s much too late.
  - nopassrecover 9mo ago
    Sorry what’s the inheritance logic here? Are you talking about life insurance or something? Otherwise, and again presuming the cure doesn’t work which seems absent from your assessment as a possibility, how would it affect someone’s inheritance? My general understanding is life insurance almost never actually pays out, and if it does it’s after a long fight and for less than you signed up for, and in any case should typically not be the largest portion of your inheritance. That all aside, taking a risky but possible option that may mean survival, as a conscious and informed decision, even if aware it may void a possibility of a life insurance payout, doesn’t seem like a decision we have more right to make than the person affected by it.
    - dyauspitr 9mo ago
      Life insurance has a small 2-5% denial rate and most of those are lying big on the application. What are you talking about.

If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option.

dylan604 9mo ago
bigPharma doesn't care about that. They care about the publicity of their drug killing someone faster than the cancer.
- ineedaj0b 9mo ago
  No. No no no. Big Pharma needs good data. And they have annoying FDAs/whatever-regulations-body slowing them down. If you have a serious disease they might not mind you taking it. But if you have a serious disease plus your kidneys have already shutdown - w/e drug won’t save you. The death counts as a negative. “Let me take it anyway” well fine but it’s not some huge conspiracy.
WJW 9mo ago
It's not just those two choices though. It could be "6 months in relative comfort" and "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious". Or anything in between. Just saying. Medical guidelines are there for a reason and are often, as they say in the military, "written in blood".
- tw04 9mo ago
  > "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious" They aren’t going to know if it does that until they give it to a human in the first place. The only difference in giving it now is they lack a control group.
- investinwaffles 9mo ago
  Having seen the last ten days of pancreatic cancer, there isn’t really a difference with what you’re describing.
  - WJW 9mo ago
    Yes I (sadly) know. I commiserate with your loss.
- magospietato 9mo ago
  Having seen a family member die absolutely horrifically in a matter of weeks due to late-diagnosed pancreatic cancer, I'd consider suicide if I got the same diagnosis.
  - WJW 9mo ago
    Yes I (sadly) know. I commiserate with your loss. Still wouldn't let my loved ones try untested treatments though, especially if it buys only weeks of extra lifetime. The potential costs are too high.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
kulahan 9mo ago
I found this green block in my back yard. It killed a dog because he was mostly cancer I think. Anyways just sign over hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks! This will probably ki—er, cure you. What have you got to lose?
serf 9mo ago
>If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option. you're not being creative enough. I agree with compassionate use cases, but be creative here : some drugs can create deaths much more miserable than the controlled burn of a 6 month descent into hospice care surrounded by family and loved ones. 6 months to live versus a possible supportive drug regiment with the side effects being constant pain until you slowly bleed out through your eyes after total sensory lock-in -- easy a choice to make? not for me.
BobaFloutist 9mo ago
Fine, what if the drug causes a violent psychotic break and you harm your loved ones? What if some weird interaction sensitizes your nerves, and you spend your last weeks in incredible pain, begging to die? Not only would that suck for you, it would, again, affect your loved ones. It would also cause distress to the nurses that cared for you and the doctor(s) that administered it to you; remember, they don't just have to convince you, they have to convince medical professionals that this wouldn't be violating their code of ethics.

dyauspitr 9mo ago

In a purely rational world who cares. 4 months is not all that far away from 6 months and with cancer you’d probably prefer to not be alive for those last two months anyway. We should be willing to do Hail Marys with 5-10% chances of success rather than doing absolutely nothing.

kulahan 9mo ago
You would destroy any inheritance your family might get, or which could be donated to a cause saving a dozen lives, over a 5% chance you don’t die from cancer specifically, which might make you feel unbearably bad until you DO die? Like much worse than you already feel? That’s insanely irrational. Edit: and all of this is before the psychological implications of knowing your time is almost up. People would rather have burnt skin removed by a painful grinder than painless maggots because bugs and being eaten are so psychologically scarring most people won’t even consider it until they experience the pain of the flesh grinder work. People won’t think rationally anyways until it’s much too late.
- nopassrecover 9mo ago
  Sorry what’s the inheritance logic here? Are you talking about life insurance or something? Otherwise, and again presuming the cure doesn’t work which seems absent from your assessment as a possibility, how would it affect someone’s inheritance? My general understanding is life insurance almost never actually pays out, and if it does it’s after a long fight and for less than you signed up for, and in any case should typically not be the largest portion of your inheritance. That all aside, taking a risky but possible option that may mean survival, as a conscious and informed decision, even if aware it may void a possibility of a life insurance payout, doesn’t seem like a decision we have more right to make than the person affected by it.
  - dyauspitr 9mo ago
    Life insurance has a small 2-5% denial rate and most of those are lying big on the application. What are you talking about.