I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval, etc.

I think we can all see incidents of where some oversight process is loosened because of some legitimate desire to help some, but then you learn that the bad / incompetent / exploitative actors come out of the woodwork to test and take advantage of the changing of rules. Not even saying intentionally, but just by sheer numbers, the change you made allowed things that were being held back by (hopefully proper) regulation to now happen.

Anyway, not saying that the FDA and other bodies couldn't move faster -- that is always the case. And there will always be examples of people/cases stuck in the cracks with legitimately sad situations.

But I would hope that people reading such stories think about why there is a process. It's not like the FDA's purpose in life is to stop people from benefitting from new treatments. It's to prevent the flood of bad effects of companies/individuals from being able to say they offer some drug that doesn't work in the way it says it does.