I think a good analogy would be a cheap, non-medically-approved (but medical style) ultrasound. Maybe it’s marketed as a “novelty”, maybe you have to sign a waiver saying it won’t be used for diagnostic purposes, whatever.

You know that it’s going to get used as a diagnostic tool, and you know that people are going to die because of this. Under our current medical ethics, you can’t do this. Maybe we should re-evaluate this, but that opens the door to moral hazard around cheap unreliable practices. It’s not straightforward.

Moral hazard? Versus not getting even a diagnostic, let alone care, because someone couldn't afford it? Versus self determination? A clear upfront statement of what the product is not ought to suffice.

What we have isn't motivated by protection from moral hazard (at least IMO). It's a guild system that restricts even vaguely related access and practices in (I'd argue) an overly broad manner.

To be clear I don't object to the guild in this case. Only to the overly broad fence surrounding it.