5 ms·

Easier regulatory environments. Not only do you not need to talk to the FDA before testing your drug in animals, cats are way less likely to sue you if they get

Easier regulatory environments. Not only do you not need to talk to the FDA before testing your drug in animals, cats are way less likely to sue you if they get sick from your drug. Of course, we’d still do our best to make sure they didn’t, but it’s less likely to sink the entire company if they do.

krageon 4y ago
I thought this is paraphrased, but this is lifted straight from the article. This is so incredibly wrong I simply couldn't get past this statement.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  I think this company is not understanding the role that animals have in millennial households.
  - samatman 4y ago
    The company which is betting the farm on cat owners spending money to treat their suffering cats doesn't know their market? On the basis of what evidence.
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  Out of context, it sounds awful. But having read the whole article, he doesn't seem like a monster at all. If it works as planned it'll really help some cats.
  - krageon 4y ago
    - Sanzig 4y ago
      I don't want to sound callous, but... they're cats. Not humans. How do you think all the medicines at your vet's office were originally tested? Animal models are used in biomedical research all the time, and yet they account for a tiny fraction of the animals we kill for arguably less useful purposes (meat production). Provided steps are taken to minimize any unnecessary suffering (which should be relatively minimal in a drug trial), I find conducting research on animal models far more justifiable than even just eating meat - there's an alternative to the latter (vegetarianism), there aren't good alternatives to the former.
    - roflc0ptic 4y ago
      This is the entire ethical basis of animal testing, except in this case, they’re at risk of actually helping the animals they’re testing. Compare that to e.g. malaria trials where they buy mice, infect them with malaria, and then see if the malaria responds. I’m a vegetarian because once I made the leap that animals probably have an internal experience, torturing and slaughtering them so my mouth can feel a certain way strikes me as not personally justifiable. How much worse is that? Should I go around calling everyone a monster? Hardly. Animal testing at least has some meaningful rationale, and testing treatments for diseases animals actually have seems solidly in the realm of ethically justifiable
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.
  - jessermeyer 4y ago
    I think the person you're replying to is using the term 'wrong' morally.
    - samhw 4y ago
      But, like they said, it's talking about the legal reality and not the moral reality. I find it hard to see how that could be either factually or morally wrong.
- carride 4y ago
  Correct, that comment was italicized to show that it was lifted straight from the article
- krsw 4y ago
  How we got to our current state of medicine is horrifying, but the alternative is more grim. There is no clean arrival for good, safe, effective medicine. A little gallows humor isn't hurting anyone.
klevertree 4y ago
Unfortunately, the reality of trying to cure animals is that sometimes you accidentally hurt animals. That's also the reality of trying to cure humans. This is the exact same issue vets face when they perform surgery on your cat, and it's the exact same issue that surgeons face when they perform surgery on you. The difference is that vets don't have to pay tons of money for malpractice insurance in case they get sued by the owner, which is one of the big reasons why veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  >veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery.... ..."in the USA". At a guess, I'd say it's the complete opposite in Europe with it's pesky human healthcare systems.
  - pjerem 4y ago
    To be fair, human surgery also costs a lot in Europe. It's just not paid by the patient. It's not healthcare in itself that is free but health insurance.
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      It also costs less. How many European doctors make more than $500k / year ? The average orthopedic makes roughly that (https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/doctor-salaries-by-specialty/#toggle-id-1 https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/doctor-salaries-by-specia...)
      - EUROCARE 4y ago
        And that's a huge problem. All our doctors (Eastern EU here) are leaving for UK, US, or richer western EU countries. To resolve that, we have a law that requires newly graduate doctors to stay and work here for a long time (10 years here IIRC), which is rightly seen as a serious issue wrt. their personal freedom. That pushes people away from pursuing medical degrees. It's cheaper, but that has its price too.
hinkley 4y ago
And that's how our dog died in 25 days from a painkiller that the protocol is to check for liver function after 30 days... I suppose this sentence is meant to be a little tongue in cheek, but a few of us at least do not find it funny.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I can see why you found that upsetting. Still: our society (rationally) does not devote the same resources to drug development for animals as it does for humans. And even protocols, dosing regimens, etc, for humans are not perfect. And even when the ideal protocol is chosen, some people still have a bad outcome by being an outlier. Medicine is very imperfect; veterinary medicine is worse.

krageon 4y ago

I thought this is paraphrased, but this is lifted straight from the article. This is so incredibly wrong I simply couldn't get past this statement.

gonzo41 4y ago
I think this company is not understanding the role that animals have in millennial households.
- samatman 4y ago
  The company which is betting the farm on cat owners spending money to treat their suffering cats doesn't know their market? On the basis of what evidence.
schnitzelstoat 4y ago
Out of context, it sounds awful. But having read the whole article, he doesn't seem like a monster at all. If it works as planned it'll really help some cats.
- krageon 4y ago
  - Sanzig 4y ago
    I don't want to sound callous, but... they're cats. Not humans. How do you think all the medicines at your vet's office were originally tested? Animal models are used in biomedical research all the time, and yet they account for a tiny fraction of the animals we kill for arguably less useful purposes (meat production). Provided steps are taken to minimize any unnecessary suffering (which should be relatively minimal in a drug trial), I find conducting research on animal models far more justifiable than even just eating meat - there's an alternative to the latter (vegetarianism), there aren't good alternatives to the former.
  - roflc0ptic 4y ago
    This is the entire ethical basis of animal testing, except in this case, they’re at risk of actually helping the animals they’re testing. Compare that to e.g. malaria trials where they buy mice, infect them with malaria, and then see if the malaria responds. I’m a vegetarian because once I made the leap that animals probably have an internal experience, torturing and slaughtering them so my mouth can feel a certain way strikes me as not personally justifiable. How much worse is that? Should I go around calling everyone a monster? Hardly. Animal testing at least has some meaningful rationale, and testing treatments for diseases animals actually have seems solidly in the realm of ethically justifiable
idiotsecant 4y ago
Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.
- jessermeyer 4y ago
  I think the person you're replying to is using the term 'wrong' morally.
  - samhw 4y ago
    But, like they said, it's talking about the legal reality and not the moral reality. I find it hard to see how that could be either factually or morally wrong.
carride 4y ago
Correct, that comment was italicized to show that it was lifted straight from the article
krsw 4y ago
How we got to our current state of medicine is horrifying, but the alternative is more grim. There is no clean arrival for good, safe, effective medicine. A little gallows humor isn't hurting anyone.

klevertree 4y ago

Unfortunately, the reality of trying to cure animals is that sometimes you accidentally hurt animals. That's also the reality of trying to cure humans. This is the exact same issue vets face when they perform surgery on your cat, and it's the exact same issue that surgeons face when they perform surgery on you. The difference is that vets don't have to pay tons of money for malpractice insurance in case they get sued by the owner, which is one of the big reasons why veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery.

InCityDreams 4y ago
>veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery.... ..."in the USA". At a guess, I'd say it's the complete opposite in Europe with it's pesky human healthcare systems.
- pjerem 4y ago
  To be fair, human surgery also costs a lot in Europe. It's just not paid by the patient. It's not healthcare in itself that is free but health insurance.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    It also costs less. How many European doctors make more than $500k / year ? The average orthopedic makes roughly that (https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/doctor-salaries-by-specialty/#toggle-id-1 https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/doctor-salaries-by-specia...)
    - EUROCARE 4y ago
      And that's a huge problem. All our doctors (Eastern EU here) are leaving for UK, US, or richer western EU countries. To resolve that, we have a law that requires newly graduate doctors to stay and work here for a long time (10 years here IIRC), which is rightly seen as a serious issue wrt. their personal freedom. That pushes people away from pursuing medical degrees. It's cheaper, but that has its price too.

hinkley 4y ago

And that's how our dog died in 25 days from a painkiller that the protocol is to check for liver function after 30 days... I suppose this sentence is meant to be a little tongue in cheek, but a few of us at least do not find it funny.

mlyle 4y ago
I can see why you found that upsetting. Still: our society (rationally) does not devote the same resources to drug development for animals as it does for humans. And even protocols, dosing regimens, etc, for humans are not perfect. And even when the ideal protocol is chosen, some people still have a bad outcome by being an outlier. Medicine is very imperfect; veterinary medicine is worse.