What training do you have in medicine, or evaluating the effects of drugs? If you do not have such knowledge, why do you think it wouldn't be necessary?
In case anyone reasonable is reading this, please know that it's not easy to know if a medical therapy works. You cannot just give it to a bunch of patients and say to yourself "oh, they all did fine." That's how you get bloodletting. You need a control group so that you can compare how patents did without the drug, because usually the differences aren't huge. You need the groups to be randomized, because if you give your drug to a bunch of patients who are not as sick, they will do better anyway and then it will look like the drug worked when it didn't. And you need the groups to be randomized because otherwise the placebo effect can throw off your analysis.
There are countless examples of people treating patients with drugs or other therapies, convincing themselves that they worked, and then finding they had no effect or were harmful when properly tested in a trial. It's not a matter of "letting people die.' At the moment, all the information we have shows that it is more likely we will harm patients than help them by giving them hydroxychloroquine.
If you don't follow all of that, please also remember that hydroxychloroquine along with many other medications have been used already, in Wuhan, in Lombardy, in Spain, and we are still seeing high mortality. Clearly they are not any kind of miracle cure.