> It's easy to say "people who have no other options should get access to experimental treatments" but the problem is that people who have other options want those too, because nobody wants to go through chemotherapy or whatever.
I reserve for myself the right to try to save my own life, even if that means some people who can't handle that responsibility make things worse for themselves. I can't get from, "but other people might hurt themselves" to "therefore you simply have to die, sorry."
No, I think we just have to be straightforward about this; I don't want anybody to purchase snake oil, but that possibility does not move me to eliminate options for myself or my family.
You say this now, but after your son, sister or mother dies after choosing snake oil, you will likely not say "I accept that they chose wrong and that's all there is to it". You will cry bloody murder and blame the system that didn't protect them from the snake oil salesmen, and demand that something be done.
Well, I of course don't know what you personally would do. But some people would do this, and it turns out, actually a lot of the people in that situation would do that. And so something gets done.
This is the same thing as crypto, people "reserving the right to take risks with their own money", and after the money is lost asking why the government didn't protect them. And the same as many other things. Humans suck at accepting the consequences of their own choices.
Nobody has a fetish of taking your choice away from you. People ask for things to be this way, because people are just human.
I agree with your description of reality. That doesn't mean that we have to accept it or say it's ok. It may be politically infeasible for the suggested policy (allowing people to choose treatments even if some people _will_ choose unwisely), or, if enacted, it may be impossible to keep it. But I will continue to advocate for it anyways. I believe in and advocate for _many_ policies that I have close to zero hope will ever be enacted.
IMHO, the solution is not advocacy for policies where people get to choose and take the risk and get whatever results they get. Because there will generally be more people advocating for forced "good" choices.
The solution, I think, is to teach people to understand risk, choices and consequences better. With enough teaching, maybe the advocacy for the forced good will decrease.
I share the same mindset as u and I’ve been told countless times something to the effect of “yea but that’s not realistic” yet I never stop. I’ve often wondered why that is; I assume it’s just some psychological thing/on principle of not simply accepting this thing I perceive as stupid.
Additionally, I think it’s partly me just wanting to spread awareness about <stupid thing> and possibly engage smarter people than me to devise better resolutions/implementations as well.
Wondering if u have any thoughts or I’m just galaxy braining it
Let's say a treatment kills 9 out of 10 people. Maybe those 9 were terminally ill & that's why they died, but maybe the company was just lying and their treatment was doing nothing or killing people more quickly. How do you determine that? When would you shutdown a "death factory"? Would you require mandatory disclosures of the death rate & risks, or could a company hide those facts from prospective patients, only talking about the patients who survived? If they can't show efficacy, should they still be allowed to sell to patients?
I think the ideal of regulation is to try to remove the guesswork & expertise required for the end user to do due diligence. It's not perfect, but at least some minimum level of regulation, such as mandatory efficacy disclosures, would be needed.
I don't fundamentally disagree with you, I just understand why, as a society we may choose a different thing.
One of the reasons my father died of cancer quickly is that he was convinced by a chiropractor/osteopath that he had trouble with his back which could be cured with manipulation.
He was not an idiot, but sick people will make bad choices.
The abstract world of "either I die or I try this experimental treatment" is far more blurry, and there lies the problem, in my very humble opinion.
I reserve for myself the right to try to save my own life, even if that means some people who can't handle that responsibility make things worse for themselves. I can't get from, "but other people might hurt themselves" to "therefore you simply have to die, sorry."
No, I think we just have to be straightforward about this; I don't want anybody to purchase snake oil, but that possibility does not move me to eliminate options for myself or my family.