Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren’t bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they’re only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They’re still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
Campaign promises from fascist populists are always made in a superposition of joke and serious. They only resolve to one or the other when they get in office, and most of the time as a supposed “joke” to humiliate the opposition or an exaggeration to “make a point” because on the campaign trail they say whatever they think will get them votes, not what they plan to do or even think is possible.
The most frustrating of the unkept promises are those that are logistically and practically possible, but never happen because the now-leader is a fascist and doesn’t do anything without personal gain, and they can’t figure out how to exploit the implementation for themselves. Not what’s happening in this case (there was never an actual path for peace with Russia, regardless of timeline), but has happened with other Trump promises.