I'm more frustrated that there wasn't a clear editorial take in the article. I'd like to have seen some research done by the journalist into what the correct ethics are in a situation like this. My feeling is that without the option to have euthanasia (should things get worse) you are promising a tiny tiny chance of a possible cure but a large chance of increased suffering too.
The tiny chance of 40 more years of life might be worth it but its crazy to try experimental treatments as a first roll of the dice!
If you like audio there's a BBC Radio Four programme called "Inside the Ethics Committee". They have a bunch of people with real world experience of medical ethics, and they take real events and walk through them, explaining what happens at each step.
It's a surprisingly tough listen. Here's one example of a child with a treatable brain tumour. He didn't like the treatment, and when he got another tumour he decided he didn't want treatment.
> I'm more frustrated that there wasn't a clear editorial take in the article.
I'm glad there wasn't. I think the issues raised are difficult ones, with no simple, obvious resolution. Sometimes we're better off living with complexity and ambiguity.
I don't think it's nearly that black-and-white. The doctor performed a procedure he would have wanted performed on himself in the same (exceedingly desperate) circumstances. He was careful to fully inform the patients of the risks. Above all, he had his patients' welfare at heart; he wasn't doing it for money or fame or even knowledge. What he did may have been illegal, but I don't agree that it was clearly immoral.
The tiny chance of 40 more years of life might be worth it but its crazy to try experimental treatments as a first roll of the dice!