First, it's more that those two conditions. Modern ethics requires informed consent. If your doctor lies to you to get you to agree to a treatment, then just because you are of sound mind and agree to it doesn't make it ethical. If this doctor says there's a 5% chance of success, and that number is pulled out of his ass, can the patient really make an informed decision?
Second, this falls under futile medical care. The chance of survival should this work is well under 1%, and would normally suggest palliative and comfort measures rather than a highly experimental procedure. There is nothing special about this case which makes it outside the normal guidelines.
Third, experimental surgery can be warranted even under this case, but only if the knowledge gained is worthwhile and effective. The estimated cost of this surgery is over $10 million. As a straight cost/benefit analysis, the cost to do the same on a mouse or dog is much cheaper, so there can be more experiments, giving better overall information, and provide concrete data used to make a real informed consent.
Bollocks. Consider again my point 3. If it takes 100 human surgeries to match the results from 10 animal surgeries, and animal surgeries cost $100K while human surgeries cost $10M then the costs to the patient are irrelevant.
No one has established that there is a benefit to society for doing a human head transplant now vs. spending the equivalent amount of money on animal head transplants.
All evidence says that this transplant will not work and there won't be any gain from it that we couldn't have gotten cheaper and better in another way. The claims of a single surgeon are not evidence that it might work. Animal tests are evidence that it might work.
With your view we end up with things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. The Declaration of Helsinki - a foundation of modern medical research ethics - rejects your viewpoint. Quoting from https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/organtransplant.html :
> 5 Every biomedical research project involving human subjects should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society.
The surgery requires a staff of 150 doctors and nurses and exclusive use of a state-of-the-art operating theatre. The doctor clearly can't afford to go testing on animals.
That makes no sense. Do you know anything about animal or human research, and the ethics involved? I mean, history and accepted practices, not your personal beliefs. Because it looks like you're making things up to fit your preconceptions.
I gave links to people who did research with monkey head transplants, and reattaching rodent heads to the same body. I give links to the Declaration of Helsinki which rejects your stated belief.
And all you do is repeat yourself. It's getting boring.
First, it's more that those two conditions. Modern ethics requires informed consent. If your doctor lies to you to get you to agree to a treatment, then just because you are of sound mind and agree to it doesn't make it ethical. If this doctor says there's a 5% chance of success, and that number is pulled out of his ass, can the patient really make an informed decision?
Second, this falls under futile medical care. The chance of survival should this work is well under 1%, and would normally suggest palliative and comfort measures rather than a highly experimental procedure. There is nothing special about this case which makes it outside the normal guidelines.
Third, experimental surgery can be warranted even under this case, but only if the knowledge gained is worthwhile and effective. The estimated cost of this surgery is over $10 million. As a straight cost/benefit analysis, the cost to do the same on a mouse or dog is much cheaper, so there can be more experiments, giving better overall information, and provide concrete data used to make a real informed consent.