> There's a lot of definitions for both of those words.

Sure. I don't think that that implies we have the right system currently or that we can't come up with good definitions. And again, "informed" is almost definitely already an understood term in medicine since "informed consent" is already understood.

> they generally don't understand how these drugs work, what the risk profiles, are or how dosing should be managed.

That's fine. I don't think they have to understand how they work. They have to have the risks conveyed appropriately to them. They might make a call that's ultimately harmful. Adults can do that, they should be allowed to do that.

> "immiment" is a different word than "egregious" isn't it?

Well, yes. If I had defined "egregious" as the same word, that wouldn't be very helpful.

> Malnutrition, cancer, and death are pretty egregious as well, even if they occur maybe months or years in the future, aren't they?

Not really. Things that take years to happen are a lot less serious, especially as they can be monitored for. But again, this can all be explained to the patient. I'd say the bar for "egregious" should be very, very high. When in doubt, give patients the power to choose.

> Literally, enough people are fucking this stuff up that we have pop culture references to it: "ozempic face". Losing weight this rapidly is unsafe.

That isn't compelling. How many of those people are getting ozempic from a nurse practitioner at one of these compound pharmacies? If anything, I'd bet that doctors taking the time to ensure patients are informed would lead to a reduction here.