Alasanto wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: The section speaks about how in 82 GA, you need sapient species to test animals. Without knowing the toxicological profile of a medication, the lethality risk goes up dramatically. If you do know it by something like dosing animals with differing amounts (the FDA uses rats and beagles in trials, which are required, by the way), the lethal risk to participants decreases dramatically. Since people don't join clinical trials when they could die, this also has a significant impact on the number of trials conducted.
I'm still not clear how that is a rebuttal to my argument. To be clear, I agree with this logical construction:
- Assume non-sapient, non-sentient beings cannot give informed consent
- Animals are non-sapient, non-sentient beings (GA 372)
- Animals cannot give informed consent
- Clinical trials must obtain informed consent on all study subjects (GA 82)
- Animals cannot be study subjects since they cannot give informed consent
- Assume animal studies are a vital and necessary component of safe drug development
- GA 372 and GA 82 block a vital and necessary component of safe drug development by barring animal studies
- GA 372 should be repealed to allow safe drug development
If that was the argument put forth in this proposal, I would have absolutely no problem with it. However, that’s not the logic presented in this proposal. Clause 4 posits that GA 372 blocks GA 82 by preventing animal studies, but GA 372 in no way blocks GA 82. Animal testing is not a component of the 'Universal Clinical Trials Act' - not as an explicit regulation and not as an unwritten, foundational requirement. Do both resolutions adversely affect clinical trial recruitment? Absolutely. But that still doesn't change the fact that the logical construct in clause 4 is faulty.
OOC:
Er, animals are Sentient. 372 even says as much.