> "In the crazy scenario that I had to participate in drug trials, I would instate a pretty simple rule: I would only accept those substances if everyone involved in the drug creation and test taking had themselves participated in the trial."

That's a simple rule, but it's ridiculous. The costs and benefits of taking a new drug are heterogeneous. Do you think people who develop anti-psychotics should be required to take anti-psychotic medications they have no need for?

No. I do not think that. It does not make my statement invalid. Does it?

(Come to think of it, it is interesting to see how the US is so addicted to pills and the opiate epidemic. The doctors are free to prescribe willingly, receive incentives from pharma companies and there is almost zero downside paid by them for those that get addicted. Don't you think this would be a much smaller problem if there was a way to get Skin in the Game from the doctors and companies and make them pay for cases of opiate abuse?)

Anyway, I was thinking of drugs that may affect anyone, like treatments for common diseases. For those, the idea is that I would like to have some sense of symmetry in the risk taking for all parties.

As perhaps a better way illustrate what I mean: whenever I had to take my kids to the pediatrician, I would listen to the doctor's recommendations and would ask "If it was your kid, would you still do the same you are telling me?"

Here in Germany the practices are way more conservative and less pill-happy in the US, so I can't recall any time where the doctor would propose something that was not willing to apply to one of her own. In Brazil, however, I do remember in 2017 during an outbreak of Yellow Fever when I everyone was rushing to the hospitals to get a vaccine. I talked to a nurse who basically said "If it was my kid, I wouldn't give it. The side-effects are too strong and it is only sensible if you live really close to the Forest." The doctor later confirmed, and we walked out.