Yes, the tests are unique and chemical. You either need bespoke antigens that will react to the presence of specific pathogens, or primers and other components for DNA/RNA based tests.
Beyond that, these testing systems probably can't manage the sensitivity and specificity of a properly run diagnostic lab. That's fine for the setting they're being considered in, because those labs don't exist, are hard to reach or can be easily overwhelmed in an outbreak, but for a developed world setting? I don't really see it. Home diagnostics for infectious diseases over a broad range of potential pathogens is a really hard technical challenge with no real payoff - you still need to go to the doctor.
If you have accurate test results that show you need medicine and can obtain it without a gatekeeper then you don't "need" to go to a doctor. That's one hell of a payoff.
This is the exact reason that free STD testing clinics DO NOT discuss symptoms with you, and with a positive test immediately refer you to an MD. A testing environment is not treatment or management.
Its unclear who "you" means, most people on earth can actually buy antibiotics without this. Also unsure as to how you define what is "responsible" for them.
The post at the top of this chain makes it abundantly clear we're talking about the United States.
And, as an epidemiologist, the ready availability of antibiotics without any interaction with a doctor is something I'd be pretty comfortable classifying as inherently irresponsible.
Beyond that, these testing systems probably can't manage the sensitivity and specificity of a properly run diagnostic lab. That's fine for the setting they're being considered in, because those labs don't exist, are hard to reach or can be easily overwhelmed in an outbreak, but for a developed world setting? I don't really see it. Home diagnostics for infectious diseases over a broad range of potential pathogens is a really hard technical challenge with no real payoff - you still need to go to the doctor.