Thought these articles were both about patients' rights, I think they are about very different areas of patients' rights. The decision to die is very different from the decision to be experimented upon. Everyone has their own belief about what happens when they die, it's equally mysterious to us all at some level, and so it's equally as clear and accessible to us all, therefore the decision should be very simply, and without constraint, in the hands of the patient. Of course, it can be complicated by the doctor's ability or willingness to properly communicate a patient's prognosis, but nonetheless, I think it is a more clear-cut decision.
However, understanding the implications of experimental treatment is something altogether different. I don't know enough about review boards to make a definite statement as to their quality and function, but I do think that without a process for deciding whether particular doctors understand the experiments they are recommending, have some evidence for what the consequences will be, or can communicate those clearly to a patient, is needed.
To me, this involves not only the patient on the table, but to everyone else in the world who needs to trust that when they are on that table, there is something protecting them from an individual doctor's personality and motives, etc... when learning about and agreeing to an experiment. If doctors aren't sanctioned for breaking that process, it weakens our trust in the medical profession. If there are whole subsets of experimental procedure that are, out of hand, being routinely rejected by boards, then that is another discussion.