We can also have dogs "put to sleep" but not people. You can also keep a dog on a leash. If a dog dies, there's no need for a coroner's report. It's not _that_ odd that human and dog medicine are held to different levels of testing and safety.
I think this was rather implying we put down dogs, if they break too expensive to fix. The vaccine was probably grinding through loads of "pets" in development.
Very different than "putting down" terminally ill people on their own choice and action.
Tho, maybe similar to the eugenic endeavors of the past. I hope you're not implying that's what's in debate again.
I wonder about the trolley problem that is medical testing requirements.
It seems like we, as a society, would tend to never want to pull the lever to save more at the cost of risking a few. Social and contractual liability makes it a bad trade.
Acceptable risk is very low which can, paradoxically, cause more death and discomfort.
It would be nice to see a greater awareness of the tradeoffs. These things tend to get emotional, though, so not much gets done.
You can't make trolley problem tradeoffs when there's enough uncertainty involved in all the steps.
Older medicine is filled with supposed cures to issues that cause issues down the road. We also have countless medical trials that show no positive effects on the disease it's trying to cure, and outright ill effects (both short term and long term).
If we _did_ have visibility and a good understanding of the effects of stuff, you would think that Covid, of all things, would push at least some people more down this argument you are making.
But basically everyone involved (including many many people who had extreme incentives to push a vaccine through) stuck to the trial discussions.
I do understand the "Extenuating circumstances" argument. But this sort of massive generality reeks of Dunning-Krueger.
A problem is it's not really the trolly problem because the punishments if things go wrong accrue to different people than the rewards if they go right.
It isn't that stark though. There are current policy choices that result in statistical deaths. Other policy choices are quite likely to result in fewer statistical deaths, but you've somehow decided that the current policy is not even up for discussion.
Pets are considered property in all fifty states (Although in CA there are laws being proposed or even passed to change some of that). Any injuries or death to a pet only requires replacement cost.
We've also have coronavirus vaccines for dogs for a long time. More tolerance for side effects means easier approval means more vaccines which haven't been proven safe to the standards we demand for use in humans.
