Comment by willmadden
9 hours ago
Their doctor should be qualified to make that judgment without a government bureaucracy evaluating the efficacy of the test on their behalf, unless you want to completely destroy the rate of medical breakthroughs. If there's no potential harm from the procedure itself, the government shouldn't be involved at all.
Imagine if every new AI model had to be "cleared" by a government regulator. The role of government in healthcare evaluation needs to be simplified and streamlined. The liability needs to be shifted to doctor, and if it's a case of charlatanism, that liability should include a lengthy prison sentence.
Some doctors absolutely would abuse this. I used to date someone whose sister was an endodontist and there was another endodontist in the building who was making over $1m a year. She ended up seeing one of that endodontist’s patients and realized that the other doctor had been making all that money by giving people medical procedures they absolutely did not need.
But only another medical professional would know that; the patients were completely oblivious. I said she should blow the whistle but she “didn’t want to rock the boat”. It definitely changed how I feel about doctors. There’s a massive level of trust there, which most doctors will honor but a few will exploit.
So we should just let companies flood doctors with potential treatments and then hope they have enough time to figure out whats relevant for their patients?
Seems much better use of time and money to have people developing tests meet a pre-defined standard and after that point they're allowed to flood doctors with marketing for the tests.
What use is future medical advancements if it can't meet low bars like proving it works?
> Their doctor should be qualified to make that judgment without a government bureaucracy
This is like saying AI developers should be qualified to evaluate the effacy of a model without testing the model.
You're assuming that everyone has access to a doctor, and that people who do have doctors will visit them instead of just looking at their phone.
> "If there's no potential harm from the procedure itself"
There is potential harm from the procedure itself because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_constraint and because sticking needles in people and drawing blood carries inherent medical risks.
There is potential harm. That's the point.