Using animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery: the case for disclosing to patients.

BACKGROUND: Animal-derived constituents are frequently used in anaesthesia and surgery, and patients are seldom informed of this. This is problematic for a growing minority of patients who may have religious or secular concerns about their use in their care. It is not currently common practice to inform patients about the use of animal-derived constituents, yet what little empirical data does exist indicates that many patients want the opportunity to give their informed consent. DISCUSSION: First we review the nature and scale of the problem by looking at the groups who may have concerns about the use of animal-derived constituents in their care. We then summarise some of the products used in anaesthesia and surgery that can contain such constituents, such as anaesthetic drugs, surgical implants and dressings. Finally, we explore the problem of animal-derived constituents and consent using Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach, examining issues of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. Disclosing the use of animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery is warranted under Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach to the problem. Although there exist systemic and practical challenges to implementing this in practice, the ethical case for doing so is strong. The Montgomery ruling presents additional legal reason for disclosure because it entails that patients must be made aware of risks associated with their treatment that they attach significance to.

Ethical concerns regarding animal use mediate the relationship between variety of pets owned in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood.

Plant-based and vegetarian diets have been shown to have diverse health and environmental benefits and also serve to reduce farmed animal exploitation. It is therefore worthwhile to gain a better understanding of the factors that play a role in the decision to refrain from animal products. Past studies have shown that childhood pet ownership predicts the likelihood of adherence to a vegetarian diet in adulthood. Building on this research, we tested the hypothesis that the number of different types of pets owned in childhood is positively associated with degree of restriction of animal products in adulthood, and that this relationship is mediated by pro-animal attitudes. A self-selected convenience sample of 325 participants (77.2% female; mean age = 30.23 ± 12.5) reported on their vegetarian status and completed the Animal Advocacy Scale and Child Pet Ownership Questionnaire. The number of different pets owned in childhood was positively correlated with degree of vegetarianism in adulthood (p < 0.001), but was no longer a significant predictor when controlling for moral opposition to animal exploitation. A significant Sobel test (z = 4.36; p < 0.001) confirmed the presence of full mediation. Findings support the hypothesis that individuals who owned a greater variety of pets in childhood endorse more concerns regarding animal use. This, in turn, appears to predict the decision to refrain from animal products in adulthood. The possibility that an enhanced ability to generalize empathy from companion to laboratory, farm, and wildlife animals underlies this relationship should be examined in future research.

The cost of attributing moral blame: Defensiveness and resistance to change when raising awareness to animal suffering in factory farming.

Social change campaigns often entail raising awareness of harm caused by people's behavior. For example, campaigns to reduce meat eating frequently highlight the suffering endured by animals. Such messages may simultaneously attribute moral blame to individuals for causing the harm described. Given people's motivation to protect their moral self-image, we expected that information about the suffering of animals in the meat industry presented with a blaming (versus absolving) frame would generate greater defensiveness and correspondingly resistance to change in support of veg*nism (veganism/vegetarianism). We ran three studies to test this expectation. In two studies, we found that raising awareness of animal suffering using a blaming frame increased defensiveness, leading to lower veg*n-supporting attitudes and behavioral intentions. In one study, our hypothesis was not supported, however, a mini-meta analysis across the three studies suggests the overall pattern is robust. This work expands our understanding of the role of moral self-image preservation in defensiveness and resistance to change, and has applied relevance for the development of effective communication strategies in social and moral campaigns.

Will the plant-based movement redefine physicians' understanding of chronic disease?

The world is experiencing a cataclysmically increasing burden from chronic illnesses. Chronic diseases are on the advance worldwide and treatment strategies to counter this development are dominated by symptom control and polypharmacy. Thus, chronic conditions are often considered irreversible, implying a slow progression of disease that can only be hampered but not stopped. The current plant-based movement is attempting to alter this way of thinking. Applying a nutrition-first approach, the ultimate goal is either disease remission or reversal. Hereby, ethical questions arise as to whether physicians' current understanding of chronic illness is outdated and morally reprehensible. In this case, physicians may need to recommend plant-based diets to every patient suffering from chronic conditions, while determining what other socioecological factors and environmental aspects play a role in the chronic disease process. This article provides insights to aspects of diet and chronic illness and discusses how the plant-based movement could redefine current understanding of chronic disease. The ethical justifications for recommending of a plant-based diet are analyzed. The article concludes that not advocating for plant-based nutrition is unethical and harms the planet and patients alike.