> In most proposed treatments the discussion is not if they are more or less "effective", the problem is that they don't work, and some of them even have side e

> In most proposed treatments the discussion is not if they are more or less "effective", the problem is that they don't work, and some of them even have side effects. Well, in this context, whether treatments work or "don't work" is the definition of effectiveness, and whether or not they have deleterious side effects is the definition of safety. But apart from that, I'll again point out that whether or not a treatment works is determined by what results the patient considers satisfactory, and whether or not something is safe depends on what risks the patient is willing to bear; generalizations simply don't suffice here. If the unlikeliness of a procedure's success and the nature of the possible side-effects are known, then they can be communicated to the patient so that he can decide whether the higher probability of side effects is justified by the lower probability of relief according to his own hierarchy of values. If how well the treatment works and the nature of its side effects aren't known, then no one has the relevant knowledge to make an informed decision, and it still remains up to the patient to weigh the unquantifiable possibility of relief against the equally unquantifiable risk of a bad outcome. There's simply no way around the fact that the question always boils down to a deeply personal value judgement that no third party has the right to usurp. > Terminal ill people are often desperate and would try whatever is trendy Right. They're desperate because they're terminally ill. They're going to die if they don't get cured, so their risk calculation is probably entirely skewed to the "reward" side of the equation, no matter how remote it is. They've literally got nothing to lose, so it's unconscionable to forcibly deny them the right to "lose" it, third parties' objections to "trendiness" being entirely immaterial. > http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rise-and-fall-of-bone-marrow-transplantation-for-breast-cancer-a-tragic-success-story/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rise-and-fal... Perhaps this was an ineffective treatment, but the question of whether it should be paid for by insurance is entirely unrelated to the question of whether people should be forbidden from choosing to undergo the procedure at all. The FDA has nothing to do with the former question, and everything to do with the latter; in the article itself, there's no indication that anyone actually tried to forcibly prohibit the ABMT procedure. Doctors simply stopped recommending it after it was demonstrated not to be of much value. If, in some specific case in the future, patient and doctor agree that the ABMT procedure might be worth trying, no third party is going to actively overrule their judgment. But, unfortunately, this isn't the case for certain other procedures.