Suitably anonymized, I'd say "Yes." You can't make progress in any field without data. Usually, the more data the better, as long as it's good data. If archaic, misguided laws have to be broken to save lives, well... so be it.

The real trick is keeping personally-identifiable data out of the hands of insurance companies.

More like respecting all the rules assumes that the rule makers never make mistakes, act politically, or serve their own interests over those of the larger society.

Strict compliance to rule following is relying on some centralized authority to set the rules.

Your argument would make for a low risk environment but also high tyrannical potential. Rules are created to protect the status quo — not to spur innovation. Rules are established by people in power and those people have a vested interest in staying in power. Rules should be minded but not necessarily respected.

As in all things, a balance. But to argue all for one way or another is folly.

I struggle with why this access is an issue. If the health data were used in making insurance decisions, marketing, employment, or any sort of way that has a personal impact on the people in the data set then absolutely not. But presumably personally identifying information is in no way relevant to the task of training models, so what specifically is the concern? Medical data is a constellation of observations over time. Why is this particularly sensitive, especially if it’s not associated with any specific identifiable person?

HIPPA has seemed to create a view that anything related to medical care is the most secret information in all the world, when in fact it’s pretty useless to anyone but yourself and people that want your money in some way that exploits your health situation. HIPPA itself only really erects barriers between your health data and disclosure to insurers and providers without your consent.