Dataset Information

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees.

ABSTRACT: Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

SUBMITTER: Tjarnstrom E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6210494 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees.

Tjärnström Elisabeth E Weber Elin M EM Hultgren Jan J Röcklinsberg Helena H

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20181017 10

Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We ...[more]

PMID: 30336584

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community's attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics.ResultsWe received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding (1) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), (2) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), (3) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), (4) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), (5) independent review (e.g. lack of time), (6) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and (7) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies.ConclusionsRECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.

Project description:ContextThe function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.ObjectivesTo ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations used in member decision making, and student characteristics most influential in that decision making.MethodsAn electronic survey was distributed to voting members of promotions committees at 143 accredited allopathic medical schools in the USA. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data were analysed by gender, role, institution type and class size.ResultsRespondents included 241 voting members of promotions committees at 55 medical schools. Respondents endorsed various promotions committee roles, including acting in the best interest of learners' future patients and graduating highly qualified learners. Implementing policy was assigned lower importance. The overall pattern of responses did not indicate a predominant orientation toward an ethic of justice or care. Respondents indicated that committees have discretion to take individual student characteristics into consideration during deliberations, and that they do so in practice. Among the student characteristics with the greatest influence on decision making, professionalism and academic performance were paramount. Eighty-five per cent of participants indicated that they received no training.ConclusionsPromotions committee members do not regard orientations of justice and care as being mutually exclusive and endorse an array of statements regarding the committee's purpose that may conflict with one another. The considerable variance in the influence of student characteristics and the general absence of committee member training indicate a need for clear delineation of the medical profession's priorities in terms of justice and care, and of the specific student characteristics that should factor into deliberations.

Project description:BackgroundFaculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading.ObjectiveTo explore how one school's grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees' benefits and challenges.DesignThis qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018.ParticipantsParticipants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship.ApproachInterviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.Key resultsWe interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students' files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making.ConclusionsGrading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations.

Project description:Small animal veterinarians frequently have to manage conflicting interests. Beside the key consideration of the patient's interests, small animal veterinarians are often challenged to consider not only client's emotional needs, but also their own personal aspirations to provide quality patient care and to make a good living as a professional. Further, veterinarians have an interest in continuous professional development and the use of the newest treatments, which may influence their decision-making process. Based on published work, we hypothesize the existence of four decision ethics orientations that veterinarians can use to manage potentially conflicting concerns. These are: the patient-focused, the client-empathetic, the client-devolved and the development-oriented decision ethics orientations. We surveyed small animal veterinarians in Austria, Denmark, and the UK using a questionnaire (N = 648), and successfully identified the four decision ethics orientations in all three countries. The patient-focused and client-empathetic decision ethics orientations are salient in all countries, whereas Danish and UK veterinarians are slightly more client-empathetic and client-devolved compared to their Austrian colleagues. Across countries our findings show that experienced and older veterinarians tend to be more client-empathetic. Younger and less experienced professionals are more development-oriented compared to their older and more experienced colleagues. In contrast to other studies investigating ethical issues in small animal practice, we found no evidence that gender plays a decisive role in the tendency towards any decision ethics orientation. We also show that veterinarians with a higher client-empathetic orientation and development-orientation more often discuss the possibility of health insurance with clients who do not have it. The present study provides a first empirical insight into how veterinarians manage challenging expectations and ethical concerns as part of decision making in modern small animal practice.

Dataset Information

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees.

Publications

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets