> The FDA interfering with informed consent between doctor and patient isn't something I find a source of complex feelings.

Thalidomide.

Patients (and often doctors) really don't have the skills or information to make an informed decision.

They can however have 'feelings'. This is not the same thing.

"This isn't FDA approved, and could come with risks. I have not seen any in my patients, but it is a possibility" is informed consent.

I think your argument hinges on the implied idea that whoever makes up these entities (the FDA or otherwise) are intrinsically made of finer clay that the rest of us mere mortals.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not implying anything; I'm categorically stating it: experts are better than the hoi poloi. Always.

To continue my example of thalidomide, the FDA's Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey prevented millions of American babies from being born with devastating deformities.

At the same time millions of American mothers and their GP's were clamoring for the anti-nausea drug that the British mother's were enjoying. And they too said the FDA was getting in their way.

Experts aren't "made of finer clay" : they just know a lot more than the populace about specific topics. There are other topics where I am the finer clay. See 'specialisation'.