Soooooooooo, how about this as another way of looking at it?
A Phormaceutical drug company wants to trial a new drug.
They approach Doctor Beatie, in private practice, who thinks it might just be a moneyspinner if it works.
Doctor Beatie mobilises a team to administer the drug to a sample of his patients but, cruciually, without the knowledge or permission of the patients; 'because it would be too difficult to explain.'"
Some of the patients are more knowledgeable than Doctor Beatie thinks. They notice subtle changes in their conditions and do a little research.
Concerned that they may have something unplanned and unwanted happening to them, they ask questions of Doctor Beatie's team. Doctor Beatie and his team flatly deny that they have administered any unusual treatment. They go so far as to suggest that the patients maybe have another infection.
On the strength of this information, some patients go on to pay for further investigation and treatment with other consultants.
At some point, the story of Dr Beatie's activities and his relationship with the Phormaceutical company comes out, backed up with reasonable proof.
Question: What would happen to the good doctor?
Follow-up question: What would happen to the Phormaceutical company?
I submit that "It was too complicated to explain so we just went ahead and did it" may just be enough for the odd director to get jailed.