this assessment(Shevut Yaagov, Vol. 1,#13, Vol. 3,#75; Binyan Zion, #111, Hatam Sofer Yoreh Deah#76).
The general principles governing our question are fully discussed by the modern Israeli authority, A. Abraham(Lev Avraham, Vol. 11, pp. 75-76). He states that no doctor has the right to subject another person to a medical experiment even though such an experiment may eventually help others. The doctor may expose himself to danger(safeq sakana) when he attends an infectious patient, as that is his duty as a physician, but he cannot ask a patient to submit to a dangerous experiment. The author adds that if the experiment is not dangerous, then the patient may participate in it and that would be reckoned as a mitzvah. Eliezer Waldenberg (7zitz Eliezer, Vol. XIII,#103) disagrees with this view of safe experiments and denies any religious obligation even when there I$ no danger. At the most, one may permit such participation, but it is in no sense a religious duty(mitzvah).
We would generally agree with the tradition and the decision reached by Dr. Abraham, yet our patients desire to participate must also be considered. The need and mitzvah to help others through his part in such experiments is important. Tradition would reject any participation, but we may argue that as we have benefited from medical progress, W° must help to continue it.
We must ask many questions before we reach a decision. Is the patient fully informed? Does he have the capacity to understand the implications of his choice? Has this been discussed by him with his family? What actually is the risk benefit ratio?
We would permit participation in an experiment of limited risk and doubtful benefit by this patient if these questions have been answered and if he is certain that this would give meaning and purpose to the last