Wouldn't it also be considered experimenting on humans to destroy people's valves when, as you say, you don't know what the outcome is, only that 'some' people are born without jugular valves without apparent problems? Shouldn't more be known about outcomes before valves are routinely destroyed? Especially when people are paying for procedures like destroying valves where no data on safety much less efficacy exists? Could you possibly speak about the ethics of this kind of treatment that seems to go much further than performing an established procedure (angioplasty) for a different medical situation (symptoms of fatigue, cogfog, etc)?
dr zamboni did a safety study and did not have complications. we know they would occur but they did not in the safety study.
i would never destroy normal valves, but these are not normal: they are stenotic, fused, misplaced etc.
we each have our own ethidcs. we look at the circumstances, we assess risks, we discuss those risks and options with my patients, and i act based on best understandings and intentions. i do not do this for my own agrandisement or financial gain. if i did, or if i misled my patients, or if did this for my own gain, i would consider that unethical.
with regard to whether angioplasty and valvuloplasty are different, i want you to understand that from day 1 of this journey, dr zamboni and most of us have treated the area of the valves. it is only through ivus that i learned that it was the annulus of the valve or the leaflets of the valve that were being treated. it was not anything different except our understanding of this.
we are almost always treating disease valves. Surprise!