Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.

Out of context, it sounds awful.

But having read the whole article, he doesn't seem like a monster at all. If it works as planned it'll really help some cats.

How we got to our current state of medicine is horrifying, but the alternative is more grim.

There is no clean arrival for good, safe, effective medicine. A little gallows humor isn't hurting anyone.

Correct, that comment was italicized to show that it was lifted straight from the article

I think this company is not understanding the role that animals have in millennial households.