Ethically challenging situations encountered by veterinary team members

Veterinary team members (VTMs) commonly encounter ethically challenging situations (ECS). ECS can lead to moral distress & impact the safety & welfare of patients. Literature searches (1990−2020) & a focused review on advanced veterinary care (AVC) identified key ECS. A global survey of VTMs during the early COVID-19 pandemic explored frequency, stressfulness & types of ECS encountered by VTMs. Frequency increased for almost half of VTMs during the pandemic. ECS encountered by VTMs, resources used to resolve ECS, & barriers to resolution are discussed. Risk factors for experiencing increased ECS during the pandemic included being a veterinary nurse or animal health technician, working with companion animals, working in USA/Canada & having low confidence dealing with ECS in the workplace. Qualitative analysis identified key factors that may lead to or exacerbate ECS during the pandemic: communication challenges & low or no-contact euthanasia. Strategies to prevent or mitigate ECS are recommended. Access to resources (e.g. technology to facilitate telemedicine, protocols to facilitate low-contact euthanasia) are needed to prevent/mitigate ECS impacts. Ethics rounds (ER), used in medical settings, was trialed with VTMs, who completed the Euro-MCD 2.0 pre & post. The Euro-MCD evaluates outcomes of ethics rounds across domains of moral competence, moral teamwork & moral action. VTMs improved in the domains of moral competence & moral teamwork after 1 session of ER. ER has potential to improve the ability of VTMs to identify & navigate ECS & to mitigate moral distress. Recommendations: veterinary empirical ethics research to include perspectives of non-veterinarian VTMs & clients, develop a validated measurement of veterinary team member moral distress, challenge the triad of veterinary stakeholders, further evaluate & develop CESS, conduct regular surveillance of ECS & to prepare VTMs, clients, animals & other stakeholders for ECS occurring in emergencies

Review essays

Peter Singer, Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement, 222pp., Melbourne University Press, Melbourne 1999 / Randy Malamud, Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity, xi + 377pp., New York University Press, Washington Square 1998 / Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation, 286 pp., Routledge, London and New York 1996 / Jonica Newby, The Pact for Survival: Humans and their Animal Companions, 280pp., Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney 1997

Is there a problem in attributing beliefs and intentionality to animals?

In Dr Seuss’s story, ‘What Was I Scared Of?’1 the protagonist2 confronts a pair of levitating green trousers in a dark wood at night. In spite of the fact that this is a rather strange situation in which to find oneself, and that this other being is completely unknown to her, our heroine - I shall henceforth refer to her as Everyperson - immediately reacts as if these pants were behaving in accordance with some sort of purpose or intention. This is evident in her account of the situation: I wasn’t scared. But, yet, I stopped. What could those pants be there for? What could a pair of pants at night Be standing in the air for?

Ethical Challenges Posed by Advanced Veterinary Care in Companion Animal Veterinary Practice

Advanced veterinary care (AVC) of companion animals may yield improved clinical outcomes, improved animal welfare, improved satisfaction of veterinary clients, improved satisfaction of veterinary team members, and increased practice profitability. However, it also raises ethical challenges. Yet, what counts as AVC is difficult to pinpoint due to continuing advancements. We discuss some of the challenges in defining advanced veterinary care (AVC), particularly in relation to a standard of care (SOC). We then review key ethical challenges associated with AVC that have been identified in the veterinary ethics literature, including poor quality of life, dysthanasia and caregiver burden, financial cost and accessibility of veterinary care, conflicts of interest, and the absence of ethical review for some patients undergoing AVC. We suggest some strategies to address these concerns, including prospective ethical review utilising ethical frameworks and decision-making tools, the setting of humane end points, the role of regulatory bodies in limiting acceptable procedures, and the normalisation of quality-of-life scoring. We also suggest a role for retrospective ethical review in the form of ethics rounds and clinical auditing. Our discussion reenforces the need for a spectrum of veterinary care for companion animals

Low and No-Contact Euthanasia: Associated Ethical Challenges Experienced by Veterinary Team Members during the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many veterinary practices around the world have shifted to a low or no-contact consultation model to ensure the safety of their team members and clients, and comply with public health orders, while continuing to provide veterinary care. Methods: We performed reflexive thematic analysis on a subset of data collected using a mixed-methods survey of veterinary team members globally. Results: There were 540 valid responses available for analysis. Low and no-contact euthanasia we raised as a common and/or stressful ethical challenge for 22.8% of respondents. We identified five key themes: no-contact euthanasia as a unique ethical challenge; balancing veterinary team safety with the emotional needs of clients; low and no-contact protocols may cause or exacerbate fear, anxiety and distress in veterinary patients; physical distancing was more challenging during euthanasia consultations; and biosecurity measures complicated communication around euthanasia and end-of-life decision making. Recommendations: In light of concerns highlighted by respondents, we recommend the development of a toolkit of protocols that will assist veterinary team members in performing low-contact euthanasia in a range of circumstances, in alignment with their values and professional ethical codes. Professional bodies may be involved in developing, updating and disseminating this information, and ensuring a continuous supply chain of PPE

What Would You Do? Types of Ethical Challenging Situations Depicted in Vignettes Published in the Veterinary Literature from 1990 to 2020

Veterinary team members encounter a wide range of ethically challenging situations (ECS) in their work. Inability to resolve ECS in accordance with their values may negatively impact the wellbeing of veterinary team members. We sought to determine the types of ECS described in published ethical vignettes in the veterinary literature. We performed a strategic literature search, followed by a thematic analysis of vignettes published in the veterinary literature from 1990–2020. We identified 567 published vignettes in 544 publications. In the majority of vignettes, the protagonist was a veterinarian (61.6%) and the most common categories of animal involved were dogs (28.0%), livestock in general (10.8%), and cattle (10.6%). The primary type of ECS was coded for each scenario, generating 29 themes. These findings extend knowledge about types of ECS that may be encountered by veterinary team members. These themes can help to inform curricula and better prepare veterinary team members to navigate ECS. They may also highlight factors that contribute to ECS that can be addressed on a broad scale, such as through regulation, continuing professional development, or stakeholder education. Knowing that others may experience similar ECS may help veterinary team members feel part of a moral community

Low and No-Contact Euthanasia: Associated Ethical Challenges Experienced by Veterinary Team Members during the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many veterinary practices around the world have shifted to a low or no-contact consultation model to ensure the safety of their team members and clients, and comply with public health orders, while continuing to provide veterinary care. METHODS: We performed reflexive thematic analysis on a subset of data collected using a mixed-methods survey of veterinary team members globally. RESULTS: There were 540 valid responses available for analysis. Low and no-contact euthanasia we raised as a common and/or stressful ethical challenge for 22.8% of respondents. We identified five key themes: no-contact euthanasia as a unique ethical challenge; balancing veterinary team safety with the emotional needs of clients; low and no-contact protocols may cause or exacerbate fear, anxiety and distress in veterinary patients; physical distancing was more challenging during euthanasia consultations; and biosecurity measures complicated communication around euthanasia and end-of-life decision making. RECOMMENDATIONS: In light of concerns highlighted by respondents, we recommend the development of a toolkit of protocols that will assist veterinary team members in performing low-contact euthanasia in a range of circumstances, in alignment with their values and professional ethical codes. Professional bodies may be involved in developing, updating and disseminating this information, and ensuring a continuous supply chain of PPE

Risk Factors Associated With Increased Ethically Challenging Situations Encountered by Veterinary Team Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ethically challenging situations (ECS) are commonly encountered in veterinary settings. The number of ECS encountered by some veterinary team members may increase during a crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for experiencing an increase in the frequency of ECS in the months following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, utilizing data from a global survey of veterinarians, veterinary nurses and animal health technicians collected from May to July 2020. In this study, descriptive analyses were performed to characterize veterinary team members who responded to the survey (n = 540). Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with an increase in ECS encountered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Being a veterinary nurse or animal health technician, working with companion animals, working in the USA or Canada, and being not confident or underconfident in dealing with ECS in the workplace were factors associated with an increase in ECS encountered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest a need to explore the ECS encountered by veterinary team members, particularly veterinary nurses and animal health technicians working in companion animal practice, in depth. Identification of risk factors may facilitate better preparation of veterinary team members for managing ECS, and minimizing the negative impact of ECS on the well-being of those who care for animals

Frequency, Stressfulness and Type of Ethically Challenging Situations Encountered by Veterinary Team Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ethically challenging situations (ECS) are common in veterinary settings and can lead to moral stress. However, there is no published information about how a global pandemic affects the frequency and types of ECS encountered by veterinary team members. An online mixed methods survey was developed to determine the frequency, stressfulness and types of ECS experienced by veterinarians, animal health technicians and veterinary nurses since the advent of the global COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Responses from 540 veterinary team members from 22 countries were analyzed. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the median frequency of ECS encountered by respondents increased from several times per month to several times per week (Spearman Rank Correlation 0.619, P < 0.0001). The most common ECS (encountered at least several times per week) were: challenging decisions about how to proceed when clients have limited finances (64.4%), conflict between personal well-being and professional role (64.3%), conflict between the interests of clients and the interests of their animals (59.6%). These were followed by challenging decisions about what counts as an essential veterinary service (48.1%); conflict between well-being of family/household members and professional role (46.3%); and challenging decisions about whether to perform non-contact veterinary visits (46.3%). The most stressful ECS (reported to be very or maximally stressful) were: conflicts between the interests of clients and the interests of their animals (50.2%), other (42.9%), conflicts between the interests of my employer and my own interests (42.5%), challenging decisions about how to proceed when clients have limited finances (39.4%), conflict between personal well-being and professional role (38.0%), and conflict between well-being of family/household members and professional role (33.6%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses revealed biosecurity, client financial limitations, animal welfare, working conditions, and client relations as prominent themes. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study to describe the impacts of the pandemic on ECS experienced by veterinary teams globally. It identifies an increase in the frequency of ECS associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and a number of stressors unique to the pandemic. We identified a number of resources and strategies that may help veterinary team members navigate ethical challenges that may emerge in their daily work, as well as in the context of global crises

A comparison between veterinary small animal general practitioners and emergency practitioners in Australia. Part 2: client-related, work-related, and personal burnout

Burnout is reported to be common among veterinarians. However, there is limited research investigating the relationship between specific types of veterinary practice and burnout. A previous study found significant differences in work exposures between veterinary general practitioners (GPs) and emergency practitioners (EPs). The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether Australian veterinary EPs suffer from a higher level of burnout compared to veterinary GPs. The secondary aim of this study was to explore if the previously reported differences between GP and EP groups were positively associated with burnout. An anonymous, online survey incorporating the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was administered to veterinary GPs and EPs practicing in metropolitan regions of Australia. In total, 320 responses were analysed (n = 237, 74.2% GPs and n = 83, 25.9% EPs). Both groups suffered from moderate levels of burnout, but there were no significant differences in the severity of CBI burnout scores between the two groups. From the multivariable analysis four investigated factors were found to be significantly associated (p &lt; 0.05) with the work-related CBI subscale: frequency of finishing work on time; adequate staffing; work satisfaction and seriously considering leaving their principal area of practice. Five factors were significantly associated (p &lt; 0.05) with the client-related CBI subscale: position in practice; frequency of client adherence; work satisfaction; frequency of interacting with emotionally distressed clients and seriously considering leaving their principal area of practice. Four factors were significantly associated (p &lt; 0.05) with the personal burnout CBI subscale: gender; seriously considering leaving their principal area of practice; frequency of interacting with emotionally distressed clients and the workplace environment. The total burnout score was also significantly associated (p &lt; 0.05) with four factors: position in practice, workplace environment, appropriate staffing in the past week and client adherence. Future studies should focus on investigating effective strategies to mitigate these risk factors for both GPs and EPs, to reduce career attrition