[krageon]

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.

[idiotsecant]

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]

I think the person you're replying to is using the term 'wrong' morally.

[samhw]

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.

[schnitzelstoat]

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.

[krsw]

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.

[carride]

Correct, that comment was italicized to show that it was lifted straight from the article

[gonzo41]

I think this company is not understanding the role that animals have in millennial households.

[samatman]

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.