Am I actually a veterinarian or an economist? Understanding the moral challenges for farm veterinarians in Germany on the basis of a qualitative online survey.

This qualitative online survey (n = 123) investigated what farm veterinarians in Germany perceive as morally challenging situations. Vital moral challenges can be described as conflicts between different actors who make demands on the veterinarians, like (a) animals, (b) farmers, (c) politics, (d) society, (e) veterinary offices (f) colleagues, supervisors, employees and competitors and (g) the veterinarian himself/herself. Or they can be described as the conflict between different roles of veterinarians who describe themselves as (a) advocates for the animals, (b) entrepreneurs, (c) social workers, (d) part of agriculture, (e) colleagues, supervisors, employees and competitors and (f) private persons. It can be deduced that at least some study participants find the described moral challenges a cause for moral distress. The key moral challenge for farm veterinarians, from their own viewpoint, are not so much open ethical questions, ethical dilemmas or "duty vs. inclination" conflicts, but rather situations in which their personal moral convictions are conflicting with external obstacles. Accordingly, a feeling of powerlessness appears in their answers. The extremely limited financial scope of animal owners could be identified as the key external obstacle.

[Ethics in Farm animals: The role of the veterinarian in animal protection on the example of bovines]. / Ethik in der Nutztierhaltung: Die Rolle der Tierärzte im Tierschutz am Beispiel Rind.

INTRODUCTION: In the present study, farm animal practitioners in Switzerland were questioned about their reported violations of the animal welfare law in cattle and their response to the detection of violations in the year 2017. The answers from 34 participants could be included in the evaluation. In 2017, 7.8% of the farms seen by participating practices were found to be in violation of the animal welfare law. It could be shown that the participating veterinarians reported only a small part (8.7%) of the detected offenses to the veterinary offices. In 91.7% of the cases, they responded to the violations and in only 8.3% of the cases they did not respond or they waited. Most often, they informed the livestock owners about the violation (66.1%) or advised them on the implementation of the animal welfare law (24.0%). The most common reason for the decision of reporting violations or not was the severity of the offense or animal suffering. There are many reasons why violations are not reported. The improvement of the situation after a reference, advice or threat of reporting to the veterinary office and the perception of the violation as minor are the most common ones. In addition, veterinarians see their role more in information and advice than in surveillance and repression.

INTRODUCTION: Dans le cadre de la présente étude, des vétérinaires praticiens dans le domaine des animaux de rente en Suisse ont été interrogés sur les violations de la Loi sur la protection des animaux qu'ils avaient constatées chez les bovins et sur leurs réactions à ces violations en 2017. Les réponses de 34 participants ont pu être incluses dans l'évaluation. En 2017, 7,8% des exploitations vues par les pratiques participantes ont été jugées en violation de la loi sur la protection des animaux. Il a pu être démontré que les vétérinaires participants n'ont signalé qu'une petite partie (8,7%) des infractions constatées aux services vétérinaires. Dans 91,7% des cas, ils ont réagi aux violations et dans seulement 8,3% des cas, ils ne l'ont pas fait ou ont attendu. Le plus souvent, ils ont rendu les éleveurs attentifs à la violation (66,1%) ou les ont conseillés sur la mise en œuvre de la loi sur la protection des animaux (24,0%). La raison la plus courante de la décision de signaler ou non les violations était la gravité de l'infraction ou l'estimation personnelle de la souffrance des animaux. Il existe de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les violations ne sont pas signalées. L'amélioration de la situation après une information, un avis ou une menace de dénonciation aux services vétérinaires et la perception de la violation comme mineure sont les plus courantes. De plus, les vétérinaires voient davantage leur rôle dans l'information et les conseils que dans la surveillance et la répression.

Ethical conflict and moral distress in veterinary practice: A survey of North American veterinarians.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about ethical conflicts, moral distress, and burnout in veterinary practice are steadily increasing. Root causes of these problems have not been rigorously identified. Little research has been done to evaluate the existence of moral distress in North American veterinarians or to explore its impact on career sustainability and poor well-being. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Ethical conflict and resultant moral distress are common occurrences in contemporary veterinary practice and negatively impact daily practice life, but may not be identified or labeled by veterinarians as such. ANIMALS: No animals were used in this study. METHODS: Mixed methods sequential explanatory design; confidential and anonymous on-line sampling of 889 veterinarians in North America. RESULTS: A majority of respondents reported feeling conflict over what care is appropriate to provide. Over 70% of respondents felt that the obstacles they faced that prevented them from providing appropriate care caused them or their staff moderate to severe distress. Seventy-nine percent of participants report being asked to provide care that they consider futile. More than 70% of participants reported no training in conflict resolution or self-care. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Veterinarians report widespread ethical conflict and moral distress across many practice types and demographics. Most veterinarians have little to no training on how to decrease the impact of these problems. Ethical conflict and resulting moral distress may be an important source of stress and poor well-being that is not widely recognized or well defined. Well-researched and effective tools used to decrease moral distress in human healthcare could be adapted to ameliorate this problem.

Canadian dairy cattle veterinarian perspectives on calf welfare.

As advisors to dairy farmers, veterinarians are ideally positioned to influence the health of the dairy herd. Recent studies have demonstrated that dairy cattle veterinarians are also concerned about animal welfare, specifically on issues related to the housing environment, painful conditions and procedures, and managing disease in adult animals. However, less is known regarding their perspectives on calf welfare. The goal of this study was to engage cattle veterinarians in an in-depth discussion to gain a better understanding of what they think about calf welfare, and to provide clarity on what they feel is their responsibility to improve the welfare of dairy calves. Focus groups (n = 5), that collectively had 33 participants representing 5 Canadian provinces and different geographical regions, were conducted as part of a continuing education workshop for Canadian cattle veterinarians. Two trained individuals undertook exploratory data analysis using applied thematic analysis, where initial themes were identified and used to develop a detailed codebook to further guide the coding process. All transcripts were coded twice to test the validity of the initial codes and themes. Four major themes were identified: (1) veterinarians prioritized calf health and traded off this issue for other issues such as the calf's social needs; additionally, concerns included nutrition, hunger, and bull calf management; (2) veterinarians see their role in improving calf welfare within the context of shifting norms of calf management, believed to be consequence of pressure from within their profession, but also arising from pressure from their clients and the public; (3) veterinarians see their role as one of exerting social influence, primarily as an educator of their clients; and finally, (4) veterinarians see their responsibility in improving calf welfare as shaped by their personal values and professional ethics. Our results indicate that the veterinarians participating in this study are concerned about a range of calf welfare issues, believe they should have a more active role in calf management on farms, and see their role in improving calf welfare as shaped by their own values, the needs of their clients, and the concerns of the public.

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in a Tertiary Care Veterinary Specialty Hospital: Adaptation of the Human Clinical Consultation Committee Model.

Technological advances in veterinary medicine have produced considerable progress in the diagnosis and treatment of numerous diseases in animals. At the same time, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and owners of animals face increasingly complex situations that raise questions about goals of care and correct or reasonable courses of action. These dilemmas are frequently controversial and can generate conflicts between clients and health care providers. In many ways they resemble the ethical challenges confronted by human medicine and that spawned the creation of clinical ethics committees as a mechanism to analyze, discuss, and resolve disagreements. The staff of the North Carolina State University Veterinary Hospital, a specialty academic teaching institution, wanted to investigate whether similar success could be achieved in the tertiary care veterinary setting. We discuss the background and rationale for this method, as well as the approach that was taken to create a clinical ethics committee.

Conceptualization of convenience euthanasia as an ethical dilemma for veterinarians in Quebec.

Companion animal welfare in our society has become increasingly important, yet many healthy animals are euthanized in veterinary facilities. How is it possible to explain the simultaneous presence of these opposing views of obligation toward animals? The goal of this study was to describe convenience euthanasia of companion animals as experienced by veterinarians in order to understand their thought processes. A qualitative study was undertaken to analyze the results of interviews of 14 veterinarians. The study showed that veterinarians interviewed assessed convenience euthanasia based mainly on their subjective evaluation of the owner-animal bond. As most owner-animal bonds stem from an anthropocentric point of view, decisions on convenience euthanasia were taken mostly by considering the veterinarian's and the client/owner's interests.

Conceptualisation de l'euthanasie pour des raisons de commodité comme dilemme éthique pour les vétérinaires du Québec. Le respect du bien-être des animaux de compagnie dans notre société est devenu de plus en plus important. Fait paradoxal, beaucoup d'animaux en santé sont euthanasiés dans les établissements vétérinaires. Comment peut-on expliquer la présence concomitante de ces vues opposées à l'égard des obligations envers les animaux? Le but de cette étude consistait à décrire l'euthanasie des animaux de compagnie pour des raisons de commodité selon les expériences des vétérinaires afin de comprendre leurs processus de réflexion. Une étude qualitative a été entreprise afin d'analyser les résultats d'entrevues avec 14 médecins vétérinaires. L'étude a signalé que les vétérinaires interviewés évaluaient l'euthanasie pour des raisons de commodité surtout en se basant sur leur évaluation subjective du lien entre le propriétaire et l'animal. Comme la majorité des liens entre propriétaires et animaux découlent d'un point de vue anthropocentrique, les décisions pour l'euthanasie pour des raisons de commodité étaient prises surtout en considérant l'intérêt du médecin vétérinaire et du client/propriétaire.(Traduit par Isabelle Vallières).