With a veterinarian conducting part of the procedure and overseeing the rest of it, and the mouse reportedly making a decent recovery, I fail to see a lapse in ethics.
And presumably you are going to keep failing, because you're not trying. You're handwaving the subject away looking for some bright red "lapse" rather than seeing the everpresent contours.
I've come to see this type of indignant/defiant language as a tell that someone is refusing to consider an issue (ie ignorance).
Starting on epileptic mice versus humans seems like a reasonable starting point.
You're failing to identify any actual ethical issue beside a blanket problem with animal testing. Which I can partially agree with as there's plenty of needless abuse and inhumane treatment.
This specific case does not seem like that.
Second, you're not really addressing my comment, rather just responding with a more polished version of your previous comment deny any issue.
My point is where are your own ethical boundaries here? For each aspect of the situation, what would have to be different to run aground of your own ethical concerns? In order to say that something is on a specific side of a line, you must know where the line actually is, right?
Third, and this doesn't apply to you as an uninvolved commenter per se, but it definitely applies to the original "experiment" - the onus is on the person performing it to demonstrate how it is ethical. A xit that reads like a kid buying some fancy equipment and playing around to see what might happen, "18hrs in front of my laptop coding and coordinating this", and a "licensed vet" as an accountability crumple zone does not inspire confidence!
> potential harm versus the realities of medical science and study
> needless abuse and inhumane treatment.
> This specific case does not seem like that