October 26, 2026
taking a medical ethics class made me mildly suspicious of doctors. in college, i had to take a seminar class to graduate and this class, given that i was secretly taking medicine prescribed by informed consent, interested me. for professional reasons, it also interested a group of students who i will term “future doctors of America.” the content of the class was interesting and the professor, though rude, was invested in challenging our ideas. this being true, my suspicion of the medical field originates from the other students; though i realize that one’s views are likely to change as they progress through their careers, their lockstep opinions fell in line with ideas from medical professionals. namely a distrust of the patient’s capacity to make decisions regarding their health.
to pretend that most patients are well informed would be foolish; however it is equally so to act as if this population may ever be. there is no ability to get others to learn. furthermore, given that any action entails consequences which one may change their opinion of, consenting to any medical action will not guarantee a “good” decision. rather, it will only soothe the doctor’s conscience. the established concept of informed consent was uncomfortable for the other students too; given that a doctor is the keeper of facts, only they are qualified to make decisions, no?
doctors unequivocally have possession of far more facts regarding medicine than the patient. this does not mean that they are up-to-date, helpful to the patient, or informed. plenty of endocrinologists operate from outdated information. ask any woman going through menopause. there exist plenty of examples where the state of the art has not yet propagated. more importantly it is not facts which matter regarding medical decisions but rather just the patient’s wants. the decision to seek a doctor is a bilateral agreement no different than any other transactions. a doctor ought to be able to exit an agreement if their advice is not taken; a patient is entitled to find doctors which do the work they request. a paternalistic approach to medicine is incompatible and if a patient desires an untested treatment, they should be able to obtain it provided that they recognize that the outcomes of said treatment are unknown. after all the only property one may be said to possess is themselves.
there are fair questions regarding additional burdens on the medical system given the effects of these treatments. under normal circumstances i am not very concerned with this as many hospitals have the capacity to treat those who make silly decisions anyway. under extraordinary circumstances, a waiver regarding triage may be in order.
a right to try untested medicine follows from the right to autonomy we are endowed with which the paternal approach to medicine violates. given the snail-like pace of modern medical approval, the consequence of not changing such a system are people’s lives.