Interventional and Endovascular Therapy of the Nervous System Book

I still can't decide where I fall: while it seems pretty clear exploitation is what's taking place, is it preferable to allow it to proceed given the paternalistic nature of disallowing it and yes, the benefits it can lead to or should it be regulated (resolutioned) against due to the precedent of immorality it sets? Three arguments resonated with me, although one is a daydream.
1) "We should not confuse our moral worries about the objective circumstances in which people find themselves with worries about their capacity or right to make decisions about their lives within those circumstances." (Wertheimer)
2) "The only time we should be conducting clinical research trials among impoverished communities that offer less than the world's best treatment in the control arm is when doing so is needed to help those in similar health circumstances (and not, say, because using this population provides an especially cheap way to collect clean data for those who do not suffer the 'useful' deprivation)." (Carse & Little)
3) A la Kant, "We need to show humility in our condemnations of those who exploit the impoverished, as it is our indifference to the true needs of the poor that sows much of the ground of exploitation. We must also exercise caution when legislating against exploitation, for the perverse reality is that the best prospect some persons currently have for improving their lives is to submit to exploitative exchanges. While our indignation at those who exploit the poor is certainly warranted, it is not until the day arrives that our indignation is accompanied by shame that we can hope for real progress." (Siegel)