Dataset Information

"Patients' interests first, but … "⁻Austrian Veterinarians' Attitudes to Moral Challenges in Modern Small Animal Practice.

ABSTRACT: Small veterinary practice is experiencing steady improvement in diagnostics and therapies which enable veterinarians to offer evermore advanced medical care for their patients. This focus group study of veterinarians (n = 32) examined the impact of these improvements and the potential challenges they introduce in small animal practice. It shows that while advanced diagnostics and therapies deliver benefits in patient care, they also add complexities to decision-making. Although the veterinarians participating in the study were aware of their duty to act in the best interests of the animal, their decisions were highly dependent on factors such as the client's financial background and the emotional bond between client and animal, as well as the veterinarian's place of work, and level and field of specialization, and certain economic aspects of the practice. The overall conclusion is that small animal veterinarians are increasingly torn between serving the best interests of the animal, medical feasibility and contextual factors related to the client, the veterinarian, and professional colleagues. Further, the findings suggest that services are not only oriented towards the provision of medical care in a strict medical sense. On top of this, veterinarians need to deal with various expectations and wishes of clients which influence their decision-making. As it will be shown, factors like the possibility of referring patients to specialist veterinarians or prompt diagnostic results influence their decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Springer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6562789 | biostudies-other | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Patients' interests first, but … "⁻Austrian Veterinarians' Attitudes to Moral Challenges in Modern Small Animal Practice.

Springer Svenja S Sandøe Peter P Bøker Lund Thomas T Grimm Herwig H

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20190515 5

Small veterinary practice is experiencing steady improvement in diagnostics and therapies which enable veterinarians to offer evermore advanced medical care for their patients. This focus group study of veterinarians (<i>n</i> = 32) examined the impact of these improvements and the potential challenges they introduce in small animal practice. It shows that while advanced diagnostics and therapies deliver benefits in patient care, they also add complexities to decision-making. Although the veteri ...[more]

PMID: 31096614

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Background and Objective: New and more efficient methods of gene editing have intensified the ethical and legal issues associated with editing germlines. Yet no research has separated the impact of hereditary concern on public attitudes from moral concern. This research compares the impact these two concerns have on public attitudes across five applications including, the prevention of human disease, human and animal research, animals for the use of human food and the enhancement of human appearance. Methods: A sample of 1004 Australians responded to either a telephone (n = 501; randomly selected) or online survey (n = 503; sourced by Qualtrics). Both samples were representative in terms of States and Territories as well as gender (51% female), though the online sample was younger (M = 40.64, SD = 16.98; Range = 18-87) than the telephone sample (M = 54.79, SD = 18.13; Range = 18-96). A 5 (application) by 3 (type of cell) within groups design was utilized, where all respondents reported their level of approval with scientists editing genes across the 15 different contexts. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the impact of moral (embryo vs. germ) and hereditary (germ vs. somatic) concern on attitudes across all applications. Results: Australians were comfortable with editing human and animal embryos, but only for research purposes and to enhance human health. The effect of moral concern was stronger than hereditary concern, existing in all applications except for the use of animals for human purposes. Hereditary concern was only found to influence attitudes in two applications: improving human health and human research. Moral concern was found to be accentuated amongst, women, more religious individuals and those identifying as Australian, while hereditary concern was strongest amongst non-Australians, those with stronger trust in scientists, and more religious respondents. Conclusion: Moral and hereditary concerns are distinct, and require different approaches to public education, engagement and possibly regulation. Further research needs to explore hereditary concern in relation to non-human applications, and the reasons underlying cultural and gender differences.

Project description:Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan's canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned "preferred" theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves-however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a 'replication crisis' if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants' free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.

Project description:BackgroundAs 'disease detectives' and directors of public health programs, field epidemiologists play essential roles in protecting public health. Although ethical issues receive considerable attention in medical and research settings, less is known about ethical challenges faced by field epidemiologists in public health programs. Similarly, little is known about moral distress among field epidemiologists, i.e., situations in which they are constrained from acting on what they know to be morally right. Moral distress is strongly associated with empathy fatigue, burnout, reduced job retention, and disengagement. To better understand ethics training needs for field epidemiologists, in February 2019, members of TEPHIConnect, an online and mobile networking platform for Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) alumni, were invited to participate in an anonymous survey about ethical challenges and moral distress.ResultsAmong 126 respondents from 54 countries, leading causes of ethical dilemmas included inadequate informed consent (61%), inequitable allocation of resources (49%), and conflicts of interest (43%). These occur primarily in settings of disease outbreaks (60%); research (55%); and public health programs at the state, province, or national level (45%) or community level (43%). Work-related moral distress was reported by 91% of respondents, including 26% who experience it "frequently" or "almost always." Field epidemiologists working in low- and low-middle income countries were more likely to report moral distress "frequently" or "almost always" than those in higher-income countries (33.0% vs 9.1%, P = 0.006). The most common perceived contributors to moral distress included excessive stress and work demands (30%) and inadequate support from leaders (25%).ConclusionsField epidemiologists face significant work-related ethical challenges, which are endemic to public health and political systems. A substantial proportion of field epidemiologists also experience some degree of moral distress, often in association with these challenges. These findings indicate an unmet need among field epidemiologists for support in navigating ethical challenges, as well as for resources to address the human and professional consequences of moral distress.

Dataset Information

"Patients' interests first, but … "⁻Austrian Veterinarians' Attitudes to Moral Challenges in Modern Small Animal Practice.

Publications

"Patients' interests first, but … "⁻Austrian Veterinarians' Attitudes to Moral Challenges in Modern Small Animal Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets