> Damage their genome? So, they live but their children will have horrible deformations?
Unfounded assumption. I'd love to be given the opportunity to maybe live, and have to avoid reproducing, instead of being forced to consider possibilities that may have no basis in fact. If I'm days away from dying, and my only alternative is that I can take a magic pill that means I shouldn't have children, then I won't have children. It's not exactly a dilemma.
> Is it right to use patients who fear for their live as medical test subjects?
Is it right to give someone the opportunity to control their own destiny?
> Is it really an "informed consent" if a person who fears for its live gets promised a "possible cure", even if that cure could do ANYTHING?
The 'cure' showed some positive preliminary results in lab animals.
> It could dissolve the organs of the next person
Ebola doesn't literally liquefy your organs, but the virus destroys your liver and kidneys.
Unfounded assumption. I'd love to be given the opportunity to maybe live, and have to avoid reproducing, instead of being forced to consider possibilities that may have no basis in fact. If I'm days away from dying, and my only alternative is that I can take a magic pill that means I shouldn't have children, then I won't have children. It's not exactly a dilemma.
While I agree with your broad point, your reasoning here is facile because it assumes reliable foreknowledge. It's possible that you might not knoew that you shouldn't have children until after you've done so and things have turned out very badly; consider for example the administration of thalidomide during pregnancy, which turned out to produce horrific birth defects, or diethylstilberol, which turned out to cause tumors in the daughters of women who took it during pregnancy (a fact which was not discovered until many years after the drug was first administered).
Is it right to give someone the opportunity to control their own destiny?
Get it wrong and you may be doing the exact opposite, as possibility you seem to have overlooked. Good intentions are not automatically ethical, unless those intentions have a sound probabilistic basis. Tort law is full of stories about people who thought they were helping and who ultimately made things much, much worse.
Unfounded assumption. I'd love to be given the opportunity to maybe live, and have to avoid reproducing, instead of being forced to consider possibilities that may have no basis in fact. If I'm days away from dying, and my only alternative is that I can take a magic pill that means I shouldn't have children, then I won't have children. It's not exactly a dilemma.
> Is it right to use patients who fear for their live as medical test subjects?
Is it right to give someone the opportunity to control their own destiny?
> Is it really an "informed consent" if a person who fears for its live gets promised a "possible cure", even if that cure could do ANYTHING?
The 'cure' showed some positive preliminary results in lab animals.
> It could dissolve the organs of the next person
Ebola doesn't literally liquefy your organs, but the virus destroys your liver and kidneys.