If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

bigPharma doesn't care about that. They care about the publicity of their drug killing someone faster than the cancer.

	▲	ineedaj0b an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No. No no no. Big Pharma needs good data. And they have annoying FDAs/whatever-regulations-body slowing them down. If you have a serious disease they might not mind you taking it. But if you have a serious disease plus your kidneys have already shutdown - w/e drug won’t save you. The death counts as a negative. “Let me take it anyway” well fine but it’s not some huge conspiracy.

▲

WJW 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not just those two choices though. It could be "6 months in relative comfort" and "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious". Or anything in between. Just saying.

Medical guidelines are there for a reason and are often, as they say in the military, "written in blood".

	▲	investinwaffles 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Having seen the last ten days of pancreatic cancer, there isn’t really a difference with what you’re describing.
	▲	tw04 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious" They aren’t going to know if it does that until they give it to a human in the first place. The only difference in giving it now is they lack a control group.