Slashdot Mirror


Subjecting Yourself to Experimental Meds

ghostlibrary writes "Even while NIH is getting new ethics regs, patientINFORM is being evangelized as a way for ordinary citizens to look up experimental treatment online, in essence circumventing their doctor, and the FDA long ago tacitly approved this. /. debated Wikis in hospital. RSI fans track risky or untested procedures from the Typing Injury FAQ and Health-Hack covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google. Any other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users will become test subjects more than the usual college students and elderly?"

3 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Simpson... by XFilesFMDS1013 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, welcome our new medically enhanced overlords.

  2. Re:I got no insurance by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll


    Once again, an interesting theoretical tack that is of no practical value in society.

    Yup....kinda like this tack:

    If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).

    Look familiar?

    If the GPs post has no practical value, then how do you justify yours? Actually, the GPs post has more value, as his does not include an ill-defined caveat regarding the nebulous property of 'percieved value to others'.

    If you refuse (or are unable) to define and quantify 'percieved value to others' to the satisfaction of this group, you are just trolling.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  3. Re:I got no insurance by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll



    it is quite plainly spelled out in the narcotics laws of your local jurisdiction

    So your entire argument can be summed up as:

    "You should be allowed to do anything you want, as long as it is legal".

    Pathetic. I liked your argument better when it was ill-defined...at least then it was an argument, rather than a reflexively true statement.

    which are by definition the local standards for materials that impose a higher perceived cost than benefit.

    Those rose-colored glasses sure do look good on you, but don't they give you a headache after while? Are you aware how much the use of alcohol costs this society? No? Well then, how about tobacco, which, as it turns out, costs society more than all of the other drugs combined .

    Your citing existing laws and regulations as your yardstick is disingenuous in the extreme. Happy trolling to you...I'm off to take part in a more intellectually honest discussion.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey