I don't think that fracturing the regulations & approval processes into 50 different jurisdictions would be all that helpful. It would in fact greatly inhibit companies that do business in multiple states. Which set of rules do they follow? Lawsuits would abound whenever there's an issue and the rules of any jurisdiction they might operate within could be contrived to apply to the situation.
And consider the current circumstances: Yes, things are relaxed in an emergency. How would that be any different? State-level, or any level of oversight, would also be relaxed in an emergency. All that shows is that sensitivity to risk changes (decreases) when there is a crisis. It doesn't invalidate the greater level of care taken when there is the time to take it.
Also, no matter what level you impose oversight & regulation, patients will not be in a position to determine their desired level of risk. If it happens at the state level, there can still be plenty of people who would like a different risk threshold: They won't get it though.
Finally, it ignores the fact that what might be in the best interest of a more local jurisdiction (say, it costs less money) it might be very much against the best interests of others. A jurisdiction that decides it's comfortable with higher risk does not exist in a vacuum: It's comfort with higher risk would also bleed over into neighboring areas.
Far better to have a uniform set of guidelines and make exceptions on a case by case basis in emergencies, rather than make everything an exception, which would make coordination & consistency during a crisis a complete nightmare.
And consider the current circumstances: Yes, things are relaxed in an emergency. How would that be any different? State-level, or any level of oversight, would also be relaxed in an emergency. All that shows is that sensitivity to risk changes (decreases) when there is a crisis. It doesn't invalidate the greater level of care taken when there is the time to take it.
Also, no matter what level you impose oversight & regulation, patients will not be in a position to determine their desired level of risk. If it happens at the state level, there can still be plenty of people who would like a different risk threshold: They won't get it though.
Finally, it ignores the fact that what might be in the best interest of a more local jurisdiction (say, it costs less money) it might be very much against the best interests of others. A jurisdiction that decides it's comfortable with higher risk does not exist in a vacuum: It's comfort with higher risk would also bleed over into neighboring areas.
Far better to have a uniform set of guidelines and make exceptions on a case by case basis in emergencies, rather than make everything an exception, which would make coordination & consistency during a crisis a complete nightmare.