That's really the perspective I'm coming from. When I say the answer isn't to let terminal patients take whatever they feel like, it's to say that they shouldn't be the one to make the decision that a developing drug is safe enough for them to trial.
Just because one is terminal, it does not make one an expert in medicine or pharmaceuticals. So it shouldn't be used an exception to the processes in place.
I don't understand this. Society at large supports assisted suicide and a host of other personal choices that unquestionably harm the health of the person making them. Why draw a line at potential treatments for illnesses? Why can't someone choose to be a guinea pig for the sake of advancing the science?
My guess is that consumer safety is being used as an excuse by those who want to control the market via regulatory gatekeepers, to reduce competition. But regardless of what's motivating it, it's illiberal.
Killing someone who is trying to live is a bit at odds with compassion.
Desperation can make us short-sighted and reckless. It’s why most people who are prevented from committing suicide often don’t try again. It’s an act of desperation. We shouldn’t allow drug companies to exploit desperate people.
Assisted suicide has several hurdles you have to jump through. You have to be completely sure from a sound state of mind.
They're going to die anyway. This might give them a non-zero chance at survival, and at the very least let them contribute to medical science by being a test case for an experimental treatment.
Just because one is terminal, it does not make one an expert in medicine or pharmaceuticals. So it shouldn't be used an exception to the processes in place.