And if the FDA played an advisory role certifying products but not outlawing unapproved goods and informed consent was required for an MD to dispense unapproved drugs I really don't see how we're worse off.
> informed consent was required for an MD to dispense unapproved drugs
How do you define this, exactly? A family member gets wind of this radical new treatment for their terminal cancer, let's call it HemWick. They talk to their doctor and say they really want to take it, so they have no choice but to sign off on it.
They spend $50,000 on a four week regiment and by week two they're feeling a lot better and week four they're dead.
Now you're probably thinking 'Hemlock is obviously poisonous', except the reason why these regulations exist is because people were selling literal poison as cures for diseases and profiting immensely.
Sure, but that's the informed part of informed consent. Before you can start a treatment like this you have to have all the risks and benefits spelled out for you plainly by a real medical professional. Informed consent doesn't mean no rules at all and you regulate the messaging.
"This drug is known to be poisonous and at the prescribed dosage it would be lethal. There is no
no success of this drug treating any disease including cancer." I can't imagine anyone signing up after that.
> "This drug is known to be poisonous and at the prescribed dosage it would be lethal. There is no no success of this drug treating any disease including cancer." I can't imagine anyone signing up after that.
People were quite literally drinking bleach to try and cure COVID. People already vastly mistrust the medical system, they would sign up gladly because the friendly guy at the local herb store told them about it and then blame the doctor for when they die from it.
