First, do no harm. This is a foundational tenant that permeates healthcare. As a former health system executive I have been in positition to influence decision making about high risk experimental treatments in certain cases. In the US currently, in most states, you as a patient have a more or less unlimited right to try experimental treatments if you are facing a reasonable likelihood of death otherwise. The FDA plays a very limited role in one-off situations though they are frequently made to play the villain. The reality is that there are legal avenues available much of the time that providers and companies are loathe to employ. Much of the time drug companies and doctors have lots of reasons not to want to roll the dice if they think the odds of success are low enough. The risk/reward is a very different outlook for the patient than the providers and companies that may need to be a party to the treatment. There are reprecussions to all patient deaths as a result of an experimental treatment however well intended and consented.

A complicating factor that weighs over everything is that there is a long history of terrible abuse of informed consent with less privileged patients, puerto rico is a trainwreck of abuse going back a century but there are many more. As an administrator I always felt that patients who are freely giving informed consent always have the right to try, however slim the chance of success. But, it can be brutally difficult to parse out those instances where influence, coercion or even misrepresentation are at play with a particular patient and family. Family dynamics of course can play a large role too.