I don't know what the laws are on corpse fucking, I've really never looked in to it. If there is scientific value to it, then I really don't see what the concern is. If it were me they were fucking, I'd be well and truly dead and beyond concern. Nonetheless, necrophilia is not socially acceptable, and may in fact be illegal, I would expect scientists to obey the law or at least keep a low profile if there was actual gain (and if caught, accept the consequences of their actions). Kevorkian was put in jail because he overstepped the limit of the law and has to pay the consequences. I personally think the man is absolutely correct, that anyone who wishes to die should be able to do so as quickly and painlessly as possible (*with caveats that are distracting to this discussion). This is, in my mind, an open ethical question and an open legal question.
I don't really think you are interested in having a discussion, just more fear mongering over what might happen based on fear of progress and no doubt a few issues you feel are important that you know many of your contemporaries might not care about. The best one is "what if homosexuality were eradicated", personally I don't see a problem if it were done by say, gene splicing (rather than abortion or outright murder), but I know quite a few who would fight violently. Those are good discussions to have if/when they are real, it's an academic debate until such time that we have the problem to solve.
The same arguments exist about AI, all the terrible things that might happen, some things that may or may not be terrible depending on implementation. Yet entirely ignoring all the good that might also happen. I do not feel science should be handcuffed by committees, not religious ones and not secular ones. We'd still be denying heliocentricity and think stars were pixie dust or some crap if various scientists allowed themselves to be restrained by committee. The facts need to be discovered, what we do with that knowledge is up to us.