So, either it's misuse/abuse of the system (that is he is not terminally ill and is nevertheless getting compassionate use), or he _is_ terminally ill (though that seems improbable here), and is concealing that. Either would be a concern.
(Or, of course, it's not him at all. Honestly the whole thing seems pretty speculative).
This logic doesn't hold up. Should members of congress also get preferential access to experimental treatments? What about governors? We should not give any preferential access based on the status or public office of the patient.
If the president, as a citizen, requests an experimental treatment for compassionate use, that should be considered the same as anyone else.
The difference here is that the president would clearly be abusing his office to get the treatment, and this should be disclosed in his medical evaluations.
I disagree, it's the US President, not just a "random citizen", random citizens abuse the system all the time, literally all the time and they do illegal things as well, I won't say everyone but realistically large majority of people do illegal things or try to shortcut, cheat, buy illegal drugs, import illegal materials and so-on. Celebrities do it all the time as well, but also the average daddy. Also corruption for our own families happen all the time (preferential treatment) for various reasons, including covering up criminal activities.
I think also many other people than the president should have preferential treatment when it comes to certain things. If it's about health, yes, the president should be able to cut the "line". If it's about renewing a driver license or other petty things, of course as well, that should be straight cutting line, you wouldn't expect a president to waste his time standing in line anywhere.
I'm not from the US but to me it seems just normal to not compare a rando with the president, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Imagine if we had an experimental drug that would genuinely make people "smarter", why wouldn't you want the president to immediately access it, it can benefit the nation.
I disagree fundamentally. No, the president should not cut the "line".
> especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else
That's exactly the problem. Cutting the line DOES hurt other people. You could quibble over each case to determine if it actually does, but that is a waste of time. The only democratic, humane, and reasonable approach is to not allow this type of thing.
And I am aware that it happens all the time, but there's a difference between accepting that it will happen and endorsing it.
If there was a drug that makes people smarter, I would want it to go to people who need it, just like everything else.
So if the president ends-up in a random ER in a specific city while he was traveling, you are suggesting that he does the line like everyone else? What exceptions should he have, none?
One criticism I could think, if the experimentation has side-effects, the consequences could be catastrophic. Might be best to save that for time out of office.
> a single person has been granted early access through the expanded access, aka “compassionate use” pathway, which is typically used to grant access to patients with a “serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition” and who are not able to enroll in a clinical trial, often because they are too ill.
He may have medical conditions that have not been disclosed, but it does not seem like he is seriously ill or in a situation of imminent death, so this would appear to be an abuse of the system.
It probably is, but I don't really see a major issue with it, it's just a drug after all.
Doctors abuse the system all the time for their own benefits [1], you think that if a family member has some issues, they won't prescribe him drugs illegally without consult? Of course they would.
If it's true, then it indicates the reports presented about Trump's health are false, or at least misleading. The patient has conditions that Trump has not been reported to have, and has been treated with medications that Trump has not been reported to be receiving. That'd be one of the major issues with this, again, if it's true.
I don't think we can trust any public statement regarding the health or even the wealth (or even social media communication) of a president, the same as we can't trust an announcement from a large company, everything is PR or meant to facilitate something in the future.
The article seems to imply there is something wrong with this but if the US president want early access to drugs, he/she should be able to, why not?
So, either it's misuse/abuse of the system (that is he is not terminally ill and is nevertheless getting compassionate use), or he _is_ terminally ill (though that seems improbable here), and is concealing that. Either would be a concern.
(Or, of course, it's not him at all. Honestly the whole thing seems pretty speculative).
This logic doesn't hold up. Should members of congress also get preferential access to experimental treatments? What about governors? We should not give any preferential access based on the status or public office of the patient.
If the president, as a citizen, requests an experimental treatment for compassionate use, that should be considered the same as anyone else.
The difference here is that the president would clearly be abusing his office to get the treatment, and this should be disclosed in his medical evaluations.
I disagree, it's the US President, not just a "random citizen", random citizens abuse the system all the time, literally all the time and they do illegal things as well, I won't say everyone but realistically large majority of people do illegal things or try to shortcut, cheat, buy illegal drugs, import illegal materials and so-on. Celebrities do it all the time as well, but also the average daddy. Also corruption for our own families happen all the time (preferential treatment) for various reasons, including covering up criminal activities.
I think also many other people than the president should have preferential treatment when it comes to certain things. If it's about health, yes, the president should be able to cut the "line". If it's about renewing a driver license or other petty things, of course as well, that should be straight cutting line, you wouldn't expect a president to waste his time standing in line anywhere.
I'm not from the US but to me it seems just normal to not compare a rando with the president, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Imagine if we had an experimental drug that would genuinely make people "smarter", why wouldn't you want the president to immediately access it, it can benefit the nation.
I disagree fundamentally. No, the president should not cut the "line".
> especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else That's exactly the problem. Cutting the line DOES hurt other people. You could quibble over each case to determine if it actually does, but that is a waste of time. The only democratic, humane, and reasonable approach is to not allow this type of thing.
And I am aware that it happens all the time, but there's a difference between accepting that it will happen and endorsing it.
If there was a drug that makes people smarter, I would want it to go to people who need it, just like everything else.
So if the president ends-up in a random ER in a specific city while he was traveling, you are suggesting that he does the line like everyone else? What exceptions should he have, none?
One criticism I could think, if the experimentation has side-effects, the consequences could be catastrophic. Might be best to save that for time out of office.
Right, but he might also have access to the best health experts I suppose.
Very true. Forbidding it might also lead them to pursue things in secret instead of disclosing.
> a single person has been granted early access through the expanded access, aka “compassionate use” pathway, which is typically used to grant access to patients with a “serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition” and who are not able to enroll in a clinical trial, often because they are too ill.
He may have medical conditions that have not been disclosed, but it does not seem like he is seriously ill or in a situation of imminent death, so this would appear to be an abuse of the system.
It probably is, but I don't really see a major issue with it, it's just a drug after all.
Doctors abuse the system all the time for their own benefits [1], you think that if a family member has some issues, they won't prescribe him drugs illegally without consult? Of course they would.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12875-022-01631-z
===
You wouldn't give leftover prescription drugs to a friend asking? I did, they did, seems common.
If it's true, then it indicates the reports presented about Trump's health are false, or at least misleading. The patient has conditions that Trump has not been reported to have, and has been treated with medications that Trump has not been reported to be receiving. That'd be one of the major issues with this, again, if it's true.
I don't think we can trust any public statement regarding the health or even the wealth (or even social media communication) of a president, the same as we can't trust an announcement from a large company, everything is PR or meant to facilitate something in the future.