This is not a new argument, and answers will always be legal grey areas.
Medical data acquired through absolutely horrific means in WW2 for example, remains in (limited) circulation. Some of it is incredibly specialised and has practical, life saving or improving applications. (Equally, some of it was utter garbage and an excuse to indulge in torture for the sake of it). The question of whether it is right to use it is ethically impossible to mandate. Yes, it was forcibly acquired. But it is also able to save or improve lives. Does using it mean you are disrespecting the victim and legitimising the crime? Does it mean you are honouring the victims loss? Absoutely impossible to mandate as you can make any number of arguments for or against.
The choice of whether it's right or wrong is at best, difficult to legislate for. Give people the informed choice as to what it means, but perhaps do not deny. This goes for other laws that have been making the news recently too, denying choice.