Any ethicist worth your salt would presumably have no problem approving experiments that will also cost lives.

There are an endless number of parameters in medicine that can be fiddled with. If an N=1 sample were enough to convince you, all sorts of garbage would meet that pattern.

What a intellectually lazy response.

No, it would be more accurate to say "any ethicist worth his salt would argue: don't make changes that could be harmful based on a hunch"

I think it was a bit tongue in cheek, not so much lazy. Also, considering the kinds of gatekeeping and forced "concerns" I've seen some ethicists push forth just for the sake of showcasing their fixations instead of really looking at costs and benefits, I don't think it's far off the mark on reality to argue that medical ethics is worth considerable scrutiny too, and shouldn't hid behind a mantle of being above criticism.