> I see no reason to stall drugs that are proven safe, even if they might not be effective for all patients, as long as there is full disclosure and informed consent. Freedom to choose is a good thing.
I do.
For every treatment you are taking, you could have been taking some other treatment that might be more effective.
If we have no idea whether or not a drug is more effective than placebo, we should not be administering it.
This perspective is very frustrating to me. Why in the world would a sane person take a drug with unproven efficacy when others with proven efficacy are available?
However, there are many cases where there is no alternative drug or treatment that has been tested for efficacy, and so you’re stuck with hospice as standard of care.
It’s one thing for a doctor to recommend administration of a medication, it’s another thing entirely to make it unavailable for those that are in a position to make the choice for themselves.
> This perspective is very frustrating to me. Why in the world would a sane person take a drug with unproven efficacy when others with proven efficacy are available?
Because they don't want the side effects of proven treatments, and they hope that snake oil will help them.
If people were rational about their health, homeopathic supplements, and other similar bullshit wouldn't be a billion dollar industry.
If you can't prove that your treatment works, you shouldn't be advertising it as a medical treatment. Advertise it as a non-medical non-treatment.
I do.
For every treatment you are taking, you could have been taking some other treatment that might be more effective.
If we have no idea whether or not a drug is more effective than placebo, we should not be administering it.