You do not understand medical ethics.
The worst-case cost to the patient is miniscule relative to the benefits to society.
The worst-case cost to the patient is miniscule relative to the benefits to society.
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.
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.
And I do, because I've actually run human subjects experiments as approved by an IRB. QED.