• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Wouldn’t that include the eventual patients as well, for new treatments?

      Like, there’s strong questions about specism here, but somebody is going to have to go first.

      • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Willing human beings are a better choice than unwilling animals. It’s not just speciesism since I don’t think speciesism is “bad” in the sense that it is inevitable, but rather that it is questionable how much results replicate across species.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          People who are willing out of altruism, yes. But unfortunately you know that consent would be coerced. Prisoners and the poor would make up all experiment subjects. The only ethical way to do it is by lottery. People would look at the overall cost/benefit analysis of medical testing a lot more pragmatically if it was THEIR children being tested on.