I mean the ethics seem to be analytically more complex. If consenting surgeon A is to perform surgery procedure X on A such that the success chance of X on per

I mean the ethics seem to be analytically more complex. If consenting surgeon A is to perform surgery procedure X on A such that the success chance of X on person i in the set of patients I (with the disease) is increased, then A necessarily has a higher chance of saving more lives in exchange for potentially accidentally killing/injuring himself. So in fact, restricting X on A is analytically unethical when the set of patients i have a high probability of death or disability. But it's also analytically unethical to perform X on A if X results in permanent damage (i.e. remove a kidney). I've had a lot of surgery, and the best surgeons understand what it's like to be a patient, but perhaps things aren't as complex as it being totally untenable. I can see an ENT undergoing a tonsillectomy that he doesn't need so that his friends can learn, and he can learn what patients go through. Or something else relatively minor - adenoids and so on. I would say that further, doctors who prescribe medications that you can recover from (stimulants, ketamine etc.) should take them first so they know what their patients are going through. In fact, I think most surgeons/doctors would agree with the above.