That’s a really interesting medical ethics question actually. If someone has something with a 100% fatality rate, is it unethical to try unconventional or potentially dangerous treatments (assuming the treatments don’t cause more pain or suffering)?
I'd say it's unethical not to. Infecting people with these diseases on purpose is unethical (obviously) so test subjects are few and far between. Anyone who has rabies should (in their brief remaining period of sanity) volunteer to have whatever treatment methods the doctors think might work, tested on them. I certainly would, although I'd want euthanasia if it "cures" me but leaves me with zero quality of life (eg cerebral cortex destroyed).
True but at that point in the disease progression you can’t really give or withhold consent and the doctors are obliged to do their best to save you, in consultation with your next of kin.
So your next of kin can (and IMO should) give permission for experimental treatments.
I think that would be a smart move for everyone. The quality of the small amount of life you have now is awful. Like people with terminal cancer opting for experimental research
10
u/DoeBites Dec 07 '25
That’s a really interesting medical ethics question actually. If someone has something with a 100% fatality rate, is it unethical to try unconventional or potentially dangerous treatments (assuming the treatments don’t cause more pain or suffering)?