Okay this is ridiculous. We’re having a debate about future facts about my life.

But they’re relatively verifiable future facts. Let’s make this one of the rare cases of “someone is wrong on the internet” where “who’s wrong?” is an answerable (and answered) question.

You’re so confident you know what will happen if I continue to use prescription medication that I depend on. Are you confident enough to invest some money in it? I am.

1. Pick a (verifiably not you) third party who you trust. Someone who can be trusted to initially make this agreement public. I’ll choose one to mirror for public access, and trust your representative party from there.

2. I’ll authorize a medical release with my psychiatrist allowing full disclosure of my current prescriptions, any future prescription changes, my doctor’s personal opinion about my disposition as it relates to meds (present and over time), and any future doctor changes to your chosen representative party.

3. If I change doctors, I will authorize the same release. If I fail or refuse to do so within one month (time allowance purely for reasonable life changes), I forfeit.

4. We both select and disclose an organization, charity or benefactor of our choosing (again provably not ourselves).

5. We agree to a level of financial risk (with no clear possibility of financial gain). We each place a cash value (pending agreement) into an escrow account (details also pending agreement). We authorize that account to act on our behalf failing consent after some (pending agreement) period without acquiescence.

6. We select a contribution level we’re both comfortable with, and deposit it. My initial suggestion is $100, but if you think that’s too high (burden) or too low (not enough risk), I’m open to reconsider it.

7. On a regular schedule (my initial suggestion is every six months, unless you object), we enlist your chosen third party to contact my doctor/access relevant medical records and determine whether I’ve exhibited drug-seeking behaviors or other relevant cause for concern.

8. If any such concern is raised, you have my permission to make it public. I have a right to verify it with my doctor/any future doctor falling under this agreement. Disagreements are to be discussed/settled in public. I reserve the right to publish relevant letters from said doctor/future doctors. Anything I publish from an undisclosed doctor likewise means I forfeit.

9. For each evaluation period, there are two possible outcomes:

a) Neither of us admits we were wrong. The amount deposited in escrow is split evenly among our chosen recipients.

b) One of us admits we were wrong or want to cancel the agreement for any reason. The amount deposited in escrow is granted to the other party’s chosen recipient.

10. Each period this persists, following dispersal of the previous period’s donations we’re expected to deposit for the next period. Again all public record according to the same terms. If either of us fails or refuses to do so, that constitutes forfeit.

11. In the event we reach this point, I want to also suggest we increase the stakes. My suggestion is 10% of the previous period’s investment (again open to reasonable adjustments higher or lower for the same reasons).

12. This would be a friendly agreement in principle which we expect to benefit others, but we both reserve the right to contact an attorney if it gets stupid, for our own respective values of stupid.

If you’re in I’m in. If you are, I’m donating my medical experience to public scrutiny regardless of who’s right. That’s something I welcome and I hope you do too.