OK, so this is not what you want to hear and I've been a bit blunt (not as blunt as some on this thread) but I'm phrasing it so that there's no confusion, because I really really don't want anyone to get hurt.
I floated this one past Mrs Me at breakfast. She is a Royal Navy GP and has done the big boys' diving medicine course at INM. Twice.
She laughed. And said "No" pretty firmly.
Taking a risk based approach, If I were the one marking the homework, I'd want to see medical evidence that there is no connection between narcosis and narcolepsy, then I'd want a staged introduction, perhaps some dry dives in a chamber. Then I'd want a fully briefed and drilled procedure for a mild and a major episode underwater (individually risk assessed). At this point, I'd contemplate letting her begin training, but one episode in the water and I'd want a complete halt and re-assess.
Looking at that lot objectively, the medical evidence is going to be impossible. No ethics committee anywhere is going to authorise an in water trial. There is also no commercial application for such research, so there is likely to be no funding. Finally, "proving that something is safe" is an extremely vague concept. You'd need to understand statistics and medical trials to get a proper understanding of it and there are folks on here who do that for a living and can explain much better than I could. But basically, you'd need a large enough sample that it DID contain a number of episodes in order to have a certain degree of confidence about frequency. If you just repeated an experiment 100 times and all the results were negative, you absolutely can't say that "the probability of a positive result is less than 1/100"! Unless you are a government minister. But that's a whole other story.
Too many unknowns, unquantified probability of incident, potential severity of outcome severe (1-5 fatalities once you consider buddies etc attempting a rescue), no controls in place / controls suggested with little or no evidence for reduction in outcome (FFM). On ANYONE's risk scoring system, that's a big fat red.
No-one is going to touch this with a 50' pole from a commercial outfit, because the risk assessment will be impossible to justify.
BSAC have a "Healthy" appetite for risk in diving and have history in providing diving for the differently able (think that's the current PC term?). Can't say I agree with a lot of their decisions, but there it is.