It's valid morally. However, science runs on grant money and grant money will usually only be given to projects that show a proper scientific method. It would be nice if there were some sort of open market, where terminally ill patients could opt in to clinical trials. But these trials must be tightly controlled, or their results are meaningless.
I would argue that as a terminal patient, I certainly would not want to be part of the control group taking a placebo or no treatment at all, and that the scientific method could still be applied later when you still have a lot of people that took the treatment compared to a lot of people who didn't, for one reason or another. I imagine scientific grants could be funded on an individual basis, if the individual is rich enough.
Usualy placebo arms get less than 50% of the patients anyway. So most people on trials get the drug. And no, you cannot "apply the science later" because you specifically want to see the difference in PFS (progression free survival) and OS (overall survival) on both groups, and for it to be comparable they need to start with the same baseline.
But we're talking about people who have been told "this disease is going to kill you." If a treatment causes even 5 percent of them to be cured, how is that not significant? What if 40 percent have tumors shrink? Remember, any reversal of the disease is a good thing. If you're just measuring a statistical increase in life span (say 3 years treated vs 1 year placebo), I'd say you're not really aiming high enough. If you've got something with real promise you'd know it without a control group. The person in this article is exactly such a case.
It's more that the controlled placebo group will also be controlled for other medications that could compromise the research. If I have cancer A and I'm taking three or four medications + an experimental medication then it's difficult to know which factor affects the results. So the control group will be on the same types of medication in a proper study where as a sort of ad-hoc grouping of patients would be less easy if not impossible to accurately report.
I assumed we'd be comparing to the predicted outcome from no treatment, but I suppose if you wait until Hospice time there's not going to be much success with even the best virus compared to doing nothing. Which raises other questions about just how long and at what cost we try to delay the inevitable.
It's not just that. If it's not properly and exhaustively tested, then they open themselves up to litigation by people who recover less than 100% or who have a new symptom.
It's also worth noting that there is a constant sussurus of "miracle cure for foo!" that doesn't actually pan out in the long run.
The main problem with that is you will have a lot if nefarious groups abusing the situation. Desperate people will sign away their rights without understanding their risks. And even though they may already be dying, they can always suffer more. I fear this would lead to dangerous experimentations.
