I am dying of squamous cell carcinoma, and potential treatments are out of reach

Post by RangerScience » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 8:50 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #126

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #72

There's a very easy regulatory solution: Roll the drug approval process back to the way things were done prior to 1962. Back then, safety testing was all that was required. Efficacy testing -- which is difficult, expensive, arguably unethical in itself, and in some cases effectively impossible -- was not required. Drugs cost ~20-50x less to bring to market, and were brought to market faster. Indeed the 40s and 50s ar…

I remember Softenon. > it wasn't only because of low-hanging fruit. Yeah, right. They had such advanced cancer medication back then. > Give people with fatal diseases a "right to try" drugs that haven't passed safety testing -- and use that data. That data is practically worthless. I'm in favor of having people try out medication, but it will need to be heavily regulated. And we know what happens to regulation: a par…

Post by gburt » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #84

gburt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand some people are checking boxes, with no space to consider their impact. Please generously reinterpret my point to extend to their management stack and the political establishment that is responsible for the system. Those who establish, support and tolerate that system should be as directly exposed to its consequences as practicable. It is good for them to see these stories and feel the consequences of th…

The consequences to their actions are that when a doctor prescribes me a medication or when I purchase one off the shelf, I have incredibly high confidence that if I follow the dosage instructions it is safe - safe now, safe in 15 years, not worth further thought on my part. That hasn't been true in most places for most of human history. The consequences to their actions are that millions of people are saved from the…

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

inhumantsar wrote: post #148

fallingknife wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 years ago we wanted to rush the COVID vaccine and it probably saved millions. I don't understand why we can't let people make risk reward judgments. Yes probably more people will die, but they were not forced.

I agree with you but I also understand the argument that being given the choice between certain death and uncertain death is a form of coercion

Post by knodi123 » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

can16358p wrote: post #173

There should be a universal law in human rights stating anyone can take anything into their own bodies and governments can never, ever prevent them. Governments/regulators deciding what you can put into your body is beyond ridiculous: applies to all substances and drugs. Inform about the potential risks and effects: sure. Prevent: never.

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

HPMOR wrote: post #253

scoofy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When there is nothing beyond death, there is no death. We won’t be sitting on the sidelines blindfolded. We won’t exist. From our perspective the death never actually happens. I’m surprisingly okay with my lack of experience of the billions of years before the earth existed, and I won’t experience the billions after. That said, just because we can’t stay at Disneyland forever, we might as well go on the rides while w…

All though you're correct it is rational to not fear death. I personally, and likely many other people here, have a very very strong aversion to it. I DO NOT want the cessation of experience. Ideally, I'd like to continue in perpetuity, to see the sun rise from Venus, or visit my tenth generation offspring on Saturn. All of those missed experiences would be deeply saddening. To see our species conquer to universe, to…