If there is actually an imminent threat to life, such as a fire, of course all of these things should be left behind. But I'm of the opinion that in no event should anyone's health be compromised in the name of a blanket policy to collect "evidence".
In short:
save lives >> protect health >> collect evidence
Especially when those policies will obviously piss off a bunch of people, I can either assume those people who spend decades thinking about X don’t know what they’re doing, or I can say “hey, I probably know way less than they do.” That doesn’t mean I don’t inquire/don’t question, but I think jumping from an unattributed off-hand remark in a CBS article to “FAA is dumb and they’d have let me die on the tarmac” deserves some skepticism too.
I am genuinely curious about what exactly this policy is, why it exists, and how they handle cases like yours. I don’t think “assume the people who investigate aviation incidents aren’t aware there might be medicine onboard” is a good starting point for that type of inquiry.
An example where I’m from is train station escalators. There is an unwritten social rule that you stand on the left, and let anyone who is in a hurry walk down on the right. This benefits the individuals because if you’re in a hurry you can get through faster, and if you’re not you don’t care. But the rail company has constant announcements telling people not to do this, and to stand on both sides of the escalator, because a full escalator clears the platform much faster.
These announcements are largely ignored. No individual cares about clearing the platform, even though it is the best thing for the rail network as a whole (crowded platforms cause delays). I would also argue that the needs of the few people running to get to work are more important than improving network efficiency. But the job of the very intelligent, well informed boffins who make the announcements is to make the trains run on time, so the announcements continue.
In this case too, I think the FAA have a different set of priorities to the passengers, and they really don’t care about your medicine. Probably if there is an emergency they will send an employee back into the plane to grab your bag, as a one-off exception. If they’re too slow and you die, too bad—-should have had extra medicine in your shoe.
Policy is created to achieve institutional goals; individual needs are an afterthought at best.
I... kind of hate this. I can understand it, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't think it can ever be a universal truth, though.
Of course, it does require discipline to know the difference between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the corporate entity you're working for".
It could be that people ignore it because the rail network is asking you to break the social contract at no benefit to you whatsoever, only an increased risk of a negative encounter (at best getting cursed out and at worst how long until someone gets shoved for blocking the walking half?)
The real win here would be for everyone who is able, to walk down the damn escalator.
I've found the opposite, actually. Specialized fields of expertise are the less able to make policy because, in general, they fail to consider the big picture. It's all tradeoffs for everything and more than just one "expert" should have a say at any policy.
It would be like letting somebody with a specialized expertise like corporate law design a product. They are an expert at not getting sued, so we should totally listen to only them, right? Could you imagine such a product? It would be nothing but legal disclaimers and would be so watered down that it is completely useless.
