Everyone agrees with that; all regulation that actually exists or has been proposed has/had a purpose behind it.
Individuals may disagree with whether the purpose is desirable, whether the regulation effectively serves the purpose, and whether (assuming they agree that the purpose is beneficial and it is actually served in effect by the regulation) the beneficial effect of serving the purpose is worth any costs that the regulation creates, but those are different issues than "regulation without purpose".
> We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics:
Unbiased medical experts are not particularly likely to be experts on three points you suggest are critical, since none of those are actually even remotely medical questions.
Everyone agrees with that; all regulation that actually exists or has been proposed has/had a purpose behind it.
Individuals may disagree with whether the purpose is desirable, whether the regulation effectively serves the purpose, and whether (assuming they agree that the purpose is beneficial and it is actually served in effect by the regulation) the beneficial effect of serving the purpose is worth any costs that the regulation creates, but those are different issues than "regulation without purpose".