Not so as people are entrusted with their care on the understanding that they will care for them in a specific way, in one case parents, in the other case relatives/health workers. Basically the argument is that human beings qua human beings (
) object to pain being inflicted on them. Lack of consent is taken to be equatable (i think i just made that word up but never mind) with non-consent with human beings because we recognise human beings as possessing of both a certain ability and a certain potential deserving of being treated in a certain way. This is is the judaeo-christian principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However animals are not others. We do not consider pain to be bad because it can be experienced, we consider it to be bad for other reasons. So the argument against pain being inflicted on animals coming from the perspective that it is wrong to inflict pain on something that can experience it
a priori is not valid if you accept the first concept. Of course you can choose not to accept the first concept. Morality is a tricky business, is it not?
What a load of crap eh.