you're not being creative enough.
I agree with compassionate use cases, but be creative here : some drugs can create deaths much more miserable than the controlled burn of a 6 month descent into hospice care surrounded by family and loved ones.
6 months to live versus a possible supportive drug regiment with the side effects being constant pain until you slowly bleed out through your eyes after total sensory lock-in -- easy a choice to make? not for me.
What if some weird interaction sensitizes your nerves, and you spend your last weeks in incredible pain, begging to die? Not only would that suck for you, it would, again, affect your loved ones. It would also cause distress to the nurses that cared for you and the doctor(s) that administered it to you; remember, they don't just have to convince you, they have to convince medical professionals that this wouldn't be violating their code of ethics.
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.
Medical guidelines are there for a reason and are often, as they say in the military, "written in blood".
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.
Still wouldn't let my loved ones try untested treatments though, especially if it buys only weeks of extra lifetime. The potential costs are too high.
