Do you realize that this a straw man argument?

Do you realize that this is how the anti-vaxxer community gets along? And all the esotheric guys?

I don't, because I'm not part of those groups, and don't know anything about them, really.

But I can imagine that attempted smears-by-association (as you you are positing above) are common currency, in those communities.

I don't realize that because it's not.

When the original commenters said "Everyone, especially a chronically ill person on their deathbed, should be free to choose whatever experimental medical procedure they want", it's safe to assume he meant "within reason".

The "within reason" part is very important: As in, someone on their deathbed might have to go through certain hoops to get not-yet-approved treatment X (like signing waivers saying they understand the risks, etc); and there might other minimalist safeguards in place (such as that the chemicals are manufactured at regulated facilities; that the persons involved in administering the treatment have no criminal records or major fraud convictions against them) -- but ultimately, they can get access to treatment X.

By tweaking this to an extreme absolutist position -- "there should be no regulation of end-of-life treatments, of any kind, whatsoever; even if the person offering the trade is a convicted criminal and/ con-artist" you are standing up a false argument that the original commenter wasn't making.

It wasn't a strawman, but it was a pretty aggressive argument in bad faith.

You've never worked in a specialist medical clinic.

Edit: not intended to sound ad hominem

a) How do you know?

b) The phrase you're looking for is "argument from authority," which it is.

a) I don't know, it was a guess from experience.

b) Sometimes people cry 'ad hominem' after any statement that refers to the debating party ('you') and I wanted to avoid that.