3 ms·
It is there to ensure an animal is not experimented on unnecessarily or with excessive pain. Discussing a process like this might require you to slightly look f
by c0balt 7mo ago
It is there to ensure an animal is not experimented on unnecessarily or with excessive pain. Discussing a process like this might require you to slightly look further than one mostly clear cut case.
Part of his filings will be actually stating the "terminally ill" part and having this approved by an ethics committee. Making a moral judgment here is the committee's actual role as not all cases are so "simple".
- ACCount37 7mo agoThat entire 3 months process? It could have been a single informal paper that says "the animal is terminally ill, my judgement call is that this is unlikely to cause excessive suffering and might help instead, even if the chances are low, and if my judgement is proven wrong and this appears to cause excessive suffering the animal will be put down humanely". Signed by the veterinarian and the owner. Because the system is high speed low drag, and trusts the veterinarian and the owner to make reasonably good calls about pet health and suffering - unless proven otherwise by overwhelming evidence. The system trusts people by default, and that 3 months long process and an ethics board come into play when there's a suspicion that this trust may have been abused. Of course, that's not the world we live in. Which is why we're having this conversation.