[matthewmacleod]

In line with the enduring trend of public discourse, all nuance is cast aside.

We self-evidently need regulation of medicines and medical devices, at least until we hit some glorious future utopia of flawless consumer knowledge. Otherwise, people will come along, and they will sell products and devices that will harm people, and they will do it by lying about them and covering up their problems.

On the other hand, it's possible that the relatively slow pace of regulation and medical testing could cause problems bringing potentially beneficial treatments to market. This might represent an excess focus on safety at the expense of the benefits in access to new and innovative treatments.

Naturally the argument should be something along the lines of "I think we should reform medical testing to enhance the availability of innovative treatments" versus "I think that the loosening of medical regulation will result in an increase in the harmful outcomes of dangerous and untested treatments". Both ideas that are totally reasonable to think might be the case, and for which you can imagine undertaking some kind of evidence-based process to establish if reform is needed, and if so what form it might take.

But of course, snark is much easier.