Oh, give me a break here. Take your emotions out of the argument. Cutting edge medical experimentation does not necessarily equal "best possible care".

And if by innovative medical care you mean human guinea pig, then by all means buy the ticket now and head over.

Is it really a problem to want to be on the "safe side" when dealing with medical treatments on humans? You're the one who has it backwards. In your convoluted sense of ethics you somehow equate "doing nothing" and "being cautious" with "doing harm". What sort of stupidity is that?

Do you consider yourself an unethical greedy person each time you deny a beggar money on the streets? Do you consider yourself doing harm if you deny tackling a robber who has a gun pointed at a bank teller? How selfish of you to eat three meals each day and deny food to the millions of starving children in Africa. In each of these situations you had the capability to help, yet you chose to deny it to those people and it resulted in needless suffering.

Am I correctly understanding your system of ethics where you are saying that choosing to do nothing = doing harm?

Even if "doing nothing" did equal "doing harm", I would be willing to wager that doing nothing and being cautious statistically does FAR LESS "harm" than attempting a number of untested medical experiments on human guinea pigs for the sake of trying to save one person's dying grandparent.