The problem is that the risk-benefit tradeoff is not accurately labeled and presented.
Advertising laws in the US mean manufacturers can and should do everything in their power to obscure and mislead about the tradeoff. A person purchasing a unverified product should have tremendous misgivings. They should only purchase it in spite of tremendous misgivings. Anything less is not informed consent; it is deception masquerading as informed consent.
Until you fix that you get companies downplaying risks and overstating potential benefits. Fix that and informed consent becomes a real possibility and a much more attractive proposition.
> Anything less is not informed consent; it is deception masquerading as informed consent.
Which is why I think the model for such things should just be "informed consent." It's a concept that already exists in the medical practice with a well-defined procedure. Someone who your state medical board has deemed competent and responsible has to explain in painfully explicit detail all the tradeoffs and answer any and all questions. If you still want to do it you sign some forms and go on with your day.
Advertising laws in the US mean manufacturers can and should do everything in their power to obscure and mislead about the tradeoff. A person purchasing a unverified product should have tremendous misgivings. They should only purchase it in spite of tremendous misgivings. Anything less is not informed consent; it is deception masquerading as informed consent.
Until you fix that you get companies downplaying risks and overstating potential benefits. Fix that and informed consent becomes a real possibility and a much more attractive proposition.