Comparison of the Moral Sensitivity, Judgment, and Actions of Australian and Turkish Veterinary Students in Relation to Animal Ethics Issues.

Veterinarians regularly face animal ethics conflicts, and research has identified the moral reasoning methods that they utilize to solve these. It is unclear whether students' sensitivity to animal ethics conflicts influences their reasoning methods, and the recent development of appropriate tests allows this to be assessed. We compared the moral reasoning methods, intended action and sensitivity of 112 first-year veterinary students in two contrasting veterinary schools, in Australia and Turkey. Students were presented with two animal ethics issues: breeding blind hens to address welfare concerns in intensive housing, for moral reasoning evaluation; and a video of a lame dairy cow walking, for sensitivity assessment. The sensitivity score was not related to the principal moral reasoning methods, which are Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), and Universal Principles (UP). However, less sensitive students were more concerned about professional criticism of emotional reactions when addressing the hen scenario. Turkish students, mostly males, used more MN reasoning when deciding the hen dilemma. Australian, mostly female, students did not. Overall, female students were more likely to consider the universal moral principles in moral reasoning than male students and were more likely to recommend against breeding blind hens. This suggests that females are more likely to consider the ethical implications of their actions than males. This study demonstrates relationships between ethical sensitivity (ES) and moral reasoning, and cultural and gender effects on moral action choices. Students placing greater importance on professional criticism about having an emotional reaction are more likely to be those who have less ES.

Assessing Veterinary Students' Ethical Sensitivity to Farm Animal Welfare Issues.

Ethical sensitivity has been identified as one of the four necessary components of moral action, yet little has been done to assess ethical sensitivity to animal issues in animal-related professions. The aim of this study was to develop assessment tools to measure and enhance ethical sensitivity to animal issues, and determine relationships between ethical sensitivity and moral reasoning. Of a cohort of 115 third-year veterinary students from the University of Queensland, Australia, 104 students gave permission to use their responses to written ethical sensitivity and moral judgment tests, and 51 to use their video role-plays to demonstrate ethical sensitivity to current animal farming issues. Inter-rater reliability of scoring by an expert panel was moderate to substantial for the written assessment, but only slight to moderate for the video response. In the written test, students' mean scores for recognition of animals' emotions, expression of empathy and recognition of alternative actions and their impacts improved after teaching. Scores did not increase for identification of their own emotions, moral conflicts between stakeholders, and conflicts between legal, organizational and ethical responsibilities as a professional. There was no overall relationship between ethical sensitivity and moral reasoning scores. However, high scores for reasoning using universal principles were correlated with high scores for recognition of moral conflicts between stakeholders and between legal, organizational, and ethical responsibilities as a professional. Further development of these ethical sensitivity assessment tools is encouraged to enable veterinary and animal science students to raise and address animal ethics issues and alleviate moral distress.

The Relationship between Intuitive Action Choices and Moral Reasoning on Animal Ethics Issues in Students of Veterinary Medicine and Other Relevant Professions.

With growing understanding of animals' capabilities, and public and organizational pressures to improve animal welfare, moral action by veterinarians and other relevant professionals to address animal issues is increasingly important. Little is known about how their action choices relate to their moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. A moral judgment measure, the VetDIT, with three animal and three non-animal scenarios, was used to investigate the action choices of 619 students in five animal- and two non-animal-related professional programs in one Australian university, and how these related to their moral reasoning based on Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), or Universal Principles (UP) schemas. Action choices showed significant relationships to PI, MN, and UP questions, and these varied across program groups. Having a previous degree or more experience with farm animals had a negative relationship, and experience with horses or companion animals a positive relationship, with intuitive action choices favoring life and bodily integrity of animals. This study helps to explain the complex relationship between intuitive moral action choices and moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. As a useful research and educational tool for understanding this relationship, the VetDIT can enhance ethical decision making.

The Relationship between Intuitive Action Choices and Moral Reasoning on Animal Ethics Issues in Students of Veterinary Medicine and Other Relevant Professions.

With growing understanding of animals' capabilities, and public and organizational pressures to improve animal welfare, moral action by veterinarians and other relevant professionals to address animal issues is increasingly important. Little is known about how their action choices relate to their moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. A moral judgment measure, the VetDIT, with three animal and three non-animal scenarios, was used to investigate the action choices of 619 students in five animal- and two non-animal-related professional programs in one Australian university, and how these related to their moral reasoning based on Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), or Universal Principles (UP) schemas. Action choices showed significant relationships to PI, MN, and UP questions, and these varied across program groups. Having a previous degree or more experience with farm animals had a negative relationship, and experience with horses or companion animals a positive relationship, with intuitive action choices favoring life and bodily integrity of animals. This study helps to explain the complex relationship between intuitive moral action choices and moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. As a useful research and educational tool for understanding this relationship, the VetDIT can enhance ethical decision making.

The Importance of Animal Welfare Science and Ethics to Veterinary Students in Australia and New Zealand.

The study of animal welfare and ethics (AWE) as part of veterinary education is important due to increasing community concerns and expectations about this topic, global pressures regarding food security, and the requirements of veterinary accreditation, especially with respect to Day One Competences. To address several key questions regarding the attitudes to AWE of veterinary students in Australia and New Zealand (NZ), the authors surveyed the 2014 cohort of these students. The survey aimed (1) to reveal what AWE topics veterinary students in Australia and NZ consider important as Day One Competences, and (2) to ascertain how these priorities align with existing research on how concern for AWE relates to gender and stage of study. Students identified triage and professional ethics as the most important Day One Competences in AWE. Students ranked an understanding of triage as increasingly important as they progressed through their program. Professional ethics was rated more important by early and mid-stage students than by senior students. Understanding the development of animal welfare science and perspectives on animal welfare were rated as being of little importance to veterinary graduates as Day One Competences, and an understanding of "why animal welfare matters" declined as the students progressed through the program. Combined, these findings suggest that veterinary students consider it more important to have the necessary practical skills and knowledge to function as a veterinarian on their first day in practice.

Differences in Moral Judgment on Animal and Human Ethics Issues between University Students in Animal-Related, Human Medical and Arts Programs.

Moral judgment in relation to animal ethics issues has rarely been investigated. Among the research that has been conducted, studies of veterinary students have shown greater use of reasoning based on universal principles for animal than human ethics issues. This study aimed to identify if this was unique to students of veterinary and other animal-related professions. The moral reasoning of first year students of veterinary medicine, veterinary technology, and production animal science was compared with that of students in non-animal related disciplines of human medicine and arts. All students (n = 531) completed a moral reasoning test, the VetDIT, with animal and human scenarios. When compared with reasoning on human ethics issues, the combined group of students evaluating animal ethics issues showed higher levels of Universal Principles reasoning, lower levels of Personal Interest reasoning and similar levels of Maintaining Norms reasoning. Arts students showed more personal interest reasoning than students in most animal-related programs on both animal and human ethics issues, and less norms-based reasoning on animal ethics issues. Medical students showed more norms-based reasoning on animal ethics issues than all of the animal-related groups. There were no differences in principled reasoning on animal ethics issues between program groups. This has implications for animal-related professions and education programs showing that students' preference for principled reasoning on animal ethics issues is not unique to animal-related disciplines, and highlighting the need to develop student (and professional) capacity to apply principled reasoning to address ethics issues in animal industries to reduce the risk of moral distress.

Assessing Veterinary and Animal Science Students' Moral Judgment Development on Animal Ethics Issues.

Little has been done to assess veterinarians' moral judgment in relation to animal ethics issues. Following development of the VetDIT, a new moral judgment measure for animal ethics issues, this study aimed to refine and further validate the VetDIT, and to identify effects of teaching interventions on moral judgment and changes in moral judgment over time. VetDIT-V1 was refined into VetDIT-V2, and V3 was developed as a post-intervention test to prevent repetition. To test these versions for comparability, veterinary and animal science students (n=271) were randomly assigned to complete different versions. The VetDIT discriminates between stages of moral judgment, condensed into three schemas: Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), and Universal Principles (UP). There were no differences in the scores for MN and UP between the versions, and we equated PI scores to account for differences between versions. Veterinary science students (n=130) who completed a three-hour small-group workshop on moral development theory and ethical decision making increased their use of UP in moral reasoning, whereas students (n=271) who received similar information in a 50-minute lecture did not. A longitudinal comparison of matched first- and third-year students (n=39) revealed no moral judgment development toward greater use of UP. The VetDIT is therefore useful for assessing moral judgment of animal and human ethics issues in veterinary and other animal-related professions. Intensive small-group workshops using moral development knowledge and skills, rather than lectures, are conducive to developing veterinary students' moral judgment.

Identifying veterinary students' capacity for moral behavior concerning animal ethics issues.

Veterinarians face unique animal ethics challenges as practitioners and policy advisors to government and industry. Changing societal attitudes, cultural diversity, and the often conflicting needs and interests of patients and clients contribute to moral distress. Yet little has been done to identify veterinarians' capacity to address these animal ethics issues. In this study, first-year and final-year veterinary students in an Australian university were surveyed to explore moral sensitivity, moral motivation, and moral character and their relationship with moral reasoning. The majority of students were concerned about animal ethics issues and had experienced moral distress in relation to the treatment of animals. Most believed that veterinarians should address the wider social issues of animal protection and that veterinary medicine should require a commitment to animals' interests over owners'/caregivers' interests. There was less agreement that the veterinary profession was sufficiently involved in addressing animal ethics issues. The principal motivators for studying veterinary medicine were, in declining importance, enjoyment in working with animals, helping sick and injured animals, and improving the way animals are treated. However, most students had taken little or no action to address animal ethics issues. These results suggest that both first- and fifth-year veterinary students are sensitive to animal ethics issues and are motivated to prioritize the interests of animals but have little experience in taking action to address these issues. Further research is needed to determine ways to identify and assess these moral behavior components in veterinary education to develop veterinarians' capacity to address animal ethics issues.

Development of a moral judgment measure for veterinary education.

Veterinarians increasingly face animal ethics issues, conflicts, and dilemmas, both in practice and in policy, such as the tension between clients' and animals' interests. Little has been done to measure the capacity of veterinarians to make ethical judgments to prevent and address these issues or to identify the effectiveness of strategies to build this capacity. The objectives of this study were, first, to develop a test to identify the capacity of veterinarians to make ethical decisions in relation to animal ethics issues and, second, to assess students' perceptions of the usefulness of three methods for the development of ethical decision making. The Veterinary Defining Issues Test (VetDIT) was piloted with 88 first-year veterinary students at an Australian university. The veterinary students were at a variety of reasoning stages in their use of the Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), and Universal Principles (UP) reasoning methods in relation to both human ethics and animal ethics issues and operated at a higher level of reasoning for animal than human ethics. Thirty-eight students assessed three methods for developing ethical decision-making skills and identified these as being helpful in clarifying their positions, clarifying others' positions, increasing awareness of the complexity of making ethical decisions, using ethical frameworks and principles, and improving moral reasoning skills, with two methods identified as most helpful. These methods and the VetDIT have the potential to be used as tools for development and assessment of moral judgment in veterinary education to address animal ethics issues.