No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas

A method that is built upon rigorous, evidence-based research and peer-reviewed studies which aim to ensure safety and efficacy is always preferable. This process mitigates the risks of harm that can arise from unproven treatments. While scientific consensus can indeed evolve, this evolution is generally slow and methodical, driven by accumulating evidence rather than abrupt shifts.

Allowing patients to pursue treatments that have not been thoroughly vetted increases the risk of exposure to ineffective or dangerous interventions. It can also lead to a fragmentation of care standards, where tre…  Read moreatment efficacy and patient outcomes could vary wildly based on unproven personal choices rather than established medical practice. In contrast, adhering to medical consensus does not preclude innovation; rather, it ensures that new treatments are introduced in a controlled and scientifically valid manner, balancing patient safety with medical advancement.

It is unethical to try untested and novel ideas on patients where good evidence based practice exists which is tried and tested. In the case where the patient is in part of a trial or no such evidence exists this may be different but ultimately it is unethical for a doctor to prescribe a treatment that where the benefits and risks are largely unknown, and would probably not fulfil the criteria for the Bolam test and would potentially be medically negligent.

That would be illogical because no doctors should be performing such unconventional ideas and experiments on real patients as risk of injury and side effects is unknown and there is great risk of causing more harm.