rapidboson
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I haven't been following this thread closely, but to me it seems like these last few posts are basically just about different philosophies?
Some people are more risk averse and prefer not to take symptomatic ("experimental") treatments due to potential negative effects, while others prefer testing out different things to potentially improve quality of life.
Both are in a sense about keeping agency over their body and life, but are looking at the matter from different points of view. Emphasizing potential upsides or downsides.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this on an individual level. I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong with presenting potential symptomatic treatments on an institutional level.
When it comes down to the patient trying a treatment (or not), a professional educated guess on potential upsides or downsides for the individual (based on their presentation of symptoms) should be a given.
Some people are more risk averse and prefer not to take symptomatic ("experimental") treatments due to potential negative effects, while others prefer testing out different things to potentially improve quality of life.
Both are in a sense about keeping agency over their body and life, but are looking at the matter from different points of view. Emphasizing potential upsides or downsides.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this on an individual level. I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong with presenting potential symptomatic treatments on an institutional level.
When it comes down to the patient trying a treatment (or not), a professional educated guess on potential upsides or downsides for the individual (based on their presentation of symptoms) should be a given.