I understand your sentiment, but imagine the process of choosing a very risky treatment. You sign a form saying "For reals, I know this may kill me, but I'm not going to sue you unless you do something crazy like jam a fork in my head during the procedure."
That should be enough, right?
But it's not. Because if things really do go badly, many patients in our sue-happy country will say "well I knew it was risky, but I didn't know HOW risky!" And the patient may win the suit - maybe justifiably, maybe not. But doctors know this and will be cautious. So that's one contraint on you getting to try whatever you want.
Secondly, say things go badly and the patient is horribly hurt but not killed. Now he/she needs expensive medical treatment every day. Is the government going to pay for that? Surely your waiver can't also waive Medicare? So the government (meaning me and my tax dollars) also have some interest in not letting you undergo any procedure you want.
If you could really, truly waive all your rights to recourse and help, maybe you could get any procedure you want. But if you could do that, wouldn't you be pressured to do so when you didn't want to?
"well I knew it was risky, but I didn't know HOW risky!"
Right, but a contract is a contract. I bet all but one of Donald Trump's ex wifes wished they could get out of the pre-nup. But as suit happy as our society is, contracts actually work.
Secondly, say things go badly and the patient is horribly hurt but not killed. Now he/she needs expensive medical treatment every day. Is the government going to pay for that?
No. Today we have medial trials on humans. Today when something horrible happens the companies take over the costs. It has always been that way, nothing new here.
You could ask, well what if the companies don't want to take on the extra costs which would result of testing drugs on humans earlier? That is perfectly fine. No one will be forced to rush to market.
If you could really, truly waive all your rights to recourse and help, maybe you could get any procedure you want. But if you could do that, wouldn't you be pressured to do so when you didn't want to?
How is this different from Do Not Resuscitate? We have that, it's legally binding, people could be pressured into signing one.
That should be enough, right?
But it's not. Because if things really do go badly, many patients in our sue-happy country will say "well I knew it was risky, but I didn't know HOW risky!" And the patient may win the suit - maybe justifiably, maybe not. But doctors know this and will be cautious. So that's one contraint on you getting to try whatever you want.
Secondly, say things go badly and the patient is horribly hurt but not killed. Now he/she needs expensive medical treatment every day. Is the government going to pay for that? Surely your waiver can't also waive Medicare? So the government (meaning me and my tax dollars) also have some interest in not letting you undergo any procedure you want.
If you could really, truly waive all your rights to recourse and help, maybe you could get any procedure you want. But if you could do that, wouldn't you be pressured to do so when you didn't want to?