[Multics]

There's obviously potential downside, but for people with serious illnesses there's potential upside.

For example: If you've got a disease that's going to kill you and unlikely helped by current medication/therapies, then dying a bit early is a small downside, not dying for however many more decades, on the other hand, is a huge upside.

In this case, the upside/downside is asymmetrical in favour of the upside! It would be logical to take 'under-tested, possibly lethal, drugs'.

[DanBC]

> not dying for however many more decades, on the other hand, is a huge upside.

Looking at modern controversial cancer drugs we see that people get maybe six months of extra life, at very great expense, and these are the good drugs. The not so good drugs are even more expensive and provide perhaps two weeks extra life.

[Multics]

I agree! Current drugs aren't very effective, and there is a lot of room for upside in future therapies.

[DanBC]

You missed the point that the very best newest cancer drugs are really expensive and if they're good give you an extra six months of life, and if they're not good give you perhaps an extra fortnight of low quality life.

[lultimouomo]

This line of reasoning can be equally applied to lottery, though.