logoalt Hacker News

forestrywattoday at 2:23 PM1 replyview on HN

Because tests aren't completely innocuous? Because tests lead people to make significant medical decisions?

Look at the supplements world, where grifters are shilling chemicals that cause harm and make radical claims for absurd markups. Or gas station pills. You want those companies making Alzheimer's tests? People going in to a 7-11 and buying a "all illness test card" that tells people they do or don't have degenerative diseases?

No, it's very very important to ensure tests are actually indicative and ensure they are well made. To do that, a regulating body needs to be involved.


Replies

willmaddentoday at 2:28 PM

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.

show 6 replies