stopping a doctor from prescribing a risky drug to a terminally ill patient who will die without it anyway is counterproductive.
And if the patient survives, but has a debilitating condition that was a side-effect of that risky drug, then claims he was going to survive anyway and now his life has a shattered quality because the doctor prescribed an drug that hadn't been fully cleared yet? It's not as black and white as you're painting it, and drugs are not always silver bullets that save your life and send you back to playing the violin like the virtuoso you once were.
Conversely, if you didn't have that regulation, you'd have medication with a much lower quality - more people dying, and more negative side-effects for the ones who survived. Plenty of drugs look promising at the outset, then turn out to have serious issues.
> stopping a doctor from prescribing a risky drug to a terminally ill patient who will die without it anyway is counterproductive.
It's also about balancing incentives. If there were no such regulations whatsoever, you'd find yourself in a situation, where a patient with a mild cancer and a broken arm is potentially "terminally ill" and needs the New Risky Drug. It could degenerate to regular, systematic experimentation on humans in the guise of "doing everything we can".
And if the patient survives, but has a debilitating condition that was a side-effect of that risky drug, then claims he was going to survive anyway and now his life has a shattered quality because the doctor prescribed an drug that hadn't been fully cleared yet? It's not as black and white as you're painting it, and drugs are not always silver bullets that save your life and send you back to playing the violin like the virtuoso you once were.
Conversely, if you didn't have that regulation, you'd have medication with a much lower quality - more people dying, and more negative side-effects for the ones who survived. Plenty of drugs look promising at the outset, then turn out to have serious issues.