Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.
The decision should be just because a patient and a doctor, because the consequences of such decisions are more far reaching than just those two. We have a well established framework for what a drug needs to prove before they can reasonable be allowed to be given to any human being, no matter their situation, and that barrier of entry is there for a multitude of good reasons. Discarding it just because a specific patient is at risk of dying or because you can get consent is not helping patients.
Allowing dying patients to make those sorts of deals with pharmaceuticals is just as horrible in the grander scale of things, they just stand to save a lot more costs and gain a lot more profits than Netflix would in a “Running Man” scenario.
You are very optimistic. Medics will sell expensive snake oil treatment to desperate families. For example, from the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#History
> In the 1980s and 1990s, thousands of women who had successfully completed standard treatment then demanded and received high-dose bone marrow transplants, thinking this would lead to better long-term survival. However, it proved completely ineffective, and 15–20% of women died because of the brutal treatment.
I think you misunderstood. My point was that it would benefit the families because a company would gladly pay a million bucks to give a dying cancer patient the first human dose of 40 drugs they haven’t yet done any testing on, just to get quick human feedback.
The “patient” in that scenario won’t likely get any benefit from the money, but the family they leave behind would.
Obviously this is not something we want to actually see happening, but the cynic in me know that if a company can save billions by skipping all trials and going straight to “dying human” they will, and they’d be happy to pay the expendable subject a million or even more, they still come out net positive.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/access-e...
That being said I disagree with prescription pads. I should buy antibiotics for my kid without waiting four, five hours to be seen and processed
Disagree. Antibiotics should not be taken lightly, especially by kids. Doctors have been far too liberal in prescribing them even when unnecessary and this has caused people to think antibiotics are to be taken like vitamins.
This antibiotic abuse causes issues that are out of scope to discuss here.
But when a girl with a history of UTI is screaming in pain they come back with "Id rather wait for the cultures to come back"
No. Bugger off and give me the meds. I know my kid. I know what she has. And the culture confirms it three days layer every time.
And yet the Dr gives them out in exactly the same circumstances as I would if I could. Perhaps more liberally, since Im far more concerned about the consequences to my kids of destroying their gut flora.
Making all antibiotics available over the counter would not improve the situation.
Yes, in your case the culture came back positive. But, you're not psychic, you didn't really know that, and you're biased by the fact it's your own child.
Ive had some Drs push antibiotics after they literally just said a persistent cough is probably viral.
Ive had my daughter with blood curdling screams told her urine came out negative and her urine would have to be cultured. They can culture it all they want but I didn't leave without the antibiotic. Guess how the cultures come out? Plural because it happened more than once and the quick test at the Dr. has a high false + rate. Btw, untreated UTIs cause scarring.
Btw, Dr. dont pearl clutch when it comes to their loved one. My colleague, who's married to a physician, got started on antibiotics for Lyme disease before the cultures came back positive. Just in case.
"But, you're not psychic, you didn't really know that,"
No, Im not. I just happen to have a neural network on the top of my head with hundred of millions (billions?) of years of evolution to spot trends.
We literally give industrial quantities of antibiotics to animals. So antibiotic preservation is not an honest reason to lock them up
Tylenol and Advil can very quickly mess up your kid's liver and kidneys if you misdose. Yet, they're over the counter. So safety does not appear to be an honest reason either.
Ironically, statistically considering the forum, most ppl who are against me on this thread believe in drug liberalization including opiates; the one class for drugs I would keep behind the pharmacist's counter.
Btw, antibiotics are available over the counter in Europe. The ones Id use and feel comfortable using
We desperately need to stop doing that too, but at least it optimizes for bacteria that infects animals rather than humans.
I don't think you (and most other people) are anywhere near scared enough of returning to a world without antibiotics.
But then there is horizontal gene transfer.
The world has a lot to be scared of. Ive had an easy life, save for one or two experiences that have dwindled what truly frightens me a lot:
- Dying after my kids (unless my kids have a tremendous disability. Then my fear is reversed)
- Facing God, if He exists. If He doesn't, the nothingness of space.
Pain was on the list, but a bone marrow biopsy knocked it off. A world without modern antibiotics doesn't scare me. Much anyway.
What are you talking about?
> Over-the-counter (OTC) sales of antibiotics is forbidden by law in all countries, but it is allowed for some specific formulations (creams in Norway and Denmark or eye drops in the UK)
https://www.escmid.org/escmid_publications/escmid_elibrary/m...
and who decides that?
Can a drug company give "gifts" to doctor who then recommend the patient use that company's drugs when he/she is dying?