alt Hacker NewsIMO, if you view your question from the ethical framework of "do no harm" i.e. the hippocratic oath instead of "move fast and break things", I can clearly see reason for the apprehension. The standards aren't positioned to catch "quack medicine" but to require full understanding before asking someone else to put something in their bodies. It's somewhat of an entitled stance that youd be okay with other people possibly needlessly dying in any circumstance for something experimental, and not one I'd ever want taken as an official stance by a regulated medical body.
Consider what the oath actually says.
> I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Similarly I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion. But in purity and in holiness I will guard my life and my art.
Now consider that doctors in Canada and Europe are literally administering MAID as we speak. In other words, administering poison with intent to kill. Further, consider that doctors have participated in administering lethal injections, etc. I could go on all day.
But you'd invoke the Hippocratic Oath to deny people with fatal diseases access to potentially curative treatments, though admittedly experimental? That's a funny view of the oath you've got there, and either an uninformed or very funny take on medical ethics, as well.