One complexity is that patients might not be in a good place to evaluate whether a drug is truly viable or it's what they actually want, and they might face pressure from doctors or drug companies.
But I generally agree that it should be the patient's choice.
We already have a process for this called informed consent.
* Medication must be prescribed by and supervised by an MD.
* Doctor has to give you paperwork explaining everything about the drug, that it's not approved and experimental, what the known side effects are and personally go through it with you allowing you to ask questions.
It's not currently required but you could also mandate a short cooling off period to avoid rash decisions.
In an odd twist of fate the political faction that would love to eliminate the FDA also wants to eliminate informed consent because people are getting medical care they don't approve of. How dare the FDA tell you what you can and can't do with your body -- only we should be allowed to do that lololol
Right, also the state has a vested interest here, because patients bankrupting themselves on snake oil will result in more public money being spent on treatment.
But I generally agree that it should be the patient's choice.