Identifying and Developing Capacity for Veterinarians to Address Animal Ethics Issues
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTIFYING AND DEVELOPING CAPACITY FOR VETERINARIANS TO ADDRESS ANIMAL ETHICS ISSUES Joy Verrinder BA DipT MBA MA (Professional Ethics & Governance) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2016 School of Veterinary Medicine Abstract Animal ethics is a growing community concern requiring effective responses from professionals in animal-related fields such as veterinary and animal science. Limited research indicates that veterinarians regularly face ethical dilemmas in relation to animal ethics issues, causing moral distress. However, while animal ethics teaching in veterinary and other animal science courses is growing internationally, it is still a relatively new discipline with no common approach or competencies for developing ethical behaviour toward animals. This thesis is that animal ethics education should be based on a scientific approach to morality, building on existing scientific approaches to morality and moral behaviour in philosophy, neurobiology, evolutionary biology and moral psychology to identify and develop the capacity for veterinarians and others in animal-related fields to address animal ethics issues. It includes six studies with a particular focus on quantitative methodologies to measure moral judgment and moral sensitivity, two of four previously identified components of moral behaviour. Based on a well-validated test of moral judgment on human ethics issues, the first study involved development of the Veterinary Defining Issues Test (VetDIT) to identify preferred levels of moral reasoning on animal ethics issues using three veterinary-related issues. Using this test, students of veterinary medicine, animal science and veterinary technology, at different stages of their programs in one Australian university, showed similar preferences for three types of moral reasoning i.e. Personal Interest, Maintaining Norms and Universal Principles on human ethics issues, but used more principled reasoning and less personal interest reasoning on animal ethics issues. In the second study, the VetDIT was refined and a third version created to use as a post test in a moral judgment intervention study, which included moral development theory and a new template based on a universal ethical decision-making model, Preston’s Ethic of Response. This study found a three hour small group interactive workshop highly effective in developing principled reasoning as demonstrated by VetDIT moral judgment scores on pre- and post-tests. A lecture format using similar content had no effect. The third study for this thesis identified that principled reasoning was not exclusive to animal- related professions, with similarly high levels of principled reasoning by human medicine and arts students. However, arts students showed more personal interest reasoning on both human and animal issues than students of veterinary and human medicine, veterinary technology and animal i science and less maintaining norms reasoning on animal ethics issues. Human medical students showed more maintaining norms reasoning on animal ethics issues than students in animal-related disciplines. A complex relationship between intuitive action choices and moral reasoning types was demonstrated in a fourth study using the VetDIT responses of 646 students in five animal- and two non-animal-related professional programmes. Action choices showed significant relationships to specific questions in the test representing the three types of moral reasoning. However these different moral reasoning types were sometimes related to the same action choice and the same reasoning types related to different action choices. Further these relationships varied between program groups and other demographics. The fifth study investigated first and fifth year veterinary students’ moral sensitivity, motivation and action to address animal ethics issues, by developing and using a new Animal Ethics Issues Survey. It showed the majority were concerned about, and had experienced moral distress regarding, humans’ treatment of animals. Most agreed that veterinarians should address the wider social issues of animal protection and prioritise animals’, over owners’ or caregivers’, interests. However, most had taken little or no action to address animal ethics issues, with no difference between first and fifth year students. Moral distress was positively correlated with personal interest reasoning and negatively correlated with maintaining norms reasoning, which was also negatively correlated with interest in involvement in animal issues. Principled reasoning was correlated with prioritising animals’ interests in the veterinarian’s professional role. The sixth study involved development and use of an Animal Ethical Sensitivity measure to determine the effects of ethical sensitivity teaching with third year veterinary students. Results suggest that ethical sensitivity is distinct from moral judgment and can be developed. Scores increased for identification of humans’ and animals’ emotions, expression of empathy and identification of alternative actions and their impacts. Expression of one’s own emotions and identifying moral conflicts between stakeholders and between one’s own legal, professional, and ethical responsibilities developed the least. Overall this research suggests that principled reasoning on animal ethics issues in both animal and non-animal related professionals is preferred over maintaining social laws and norms and personal interest reasoning. Interactive small group work appears to be effective in developing moral ii reasoning on animal ethics issues, using moral judgment theory and a universal ethical decision- making model that combines the main ethical frameworks and principles. The VetDIT and Animal Ethical Sensitivity measures also provide reflective educational tools for developing and assessing moral reasoning and sensitivity, two key components for moral behaviour in relation to animal ethics issues. By providing new knowledge on, and resources for identifying and developing the capacity of veterinarians to address animal ethics issues, this thesis has particular relevance for students and teachers, practitioners and professional bodies in animal-related fields. However, it is also relevant to other fields including philosophy, psychology, law, government and public policy which seek to develop practical ethics skills. Wider and more extensive research and teaching is invited to further validate and develop knowledge and resources on these two components and to identify, develop and measure the other two components for moral action - moral motivation and moral character. iii Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis. iv Publications during candidature Peer-reviewed papers and a letter Verrinder JM, Phillips CJC. Development of a moral judgment measure for veterinary education. J Vet Med Educ. 2014; 41(3):258-264. Verrinder JM, Phillips CJC. Identifying veterinary students' capacity for moral behaviour concerning animal ethics issues. J Vet Med Educ. 2014; 41(4):358-370. Verrinder JM, Phillips CJC. Assessing veterinary and animal science students' moral judgment development on animal ethics issues. J Vet Med Educ. 2015; 42(3):206-216. Verrinder, J. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2015. Response to Letter to Editor “The VetDIT and veterinary ethics education”, Manuel Magalha˜es-Sant’Ana. J Vet Med Educ. 42(3):174-175. Verrinder JM, Ostini R, Phillips C. Differences in moral judgment on animal and human ethics Issues between university students in animal-related, human medical and arts programs. PLoS ONE. 2016, 11(3): e0149308. Book Chapters Verrinder JM, McGrath N, Phillips, CJC. Science, animal ethics and the law. 2016 In: Cao, D. and White, S. (eds), Animal Law and Welfare - International Perspectives. New York: Springer; 2016: pp. 63-85. Verrinder JM, Phillips, CJC. Ethics and Animal Welfare. In: Hodgson J, Pelzer J, editors. Veterinary Medical Education: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley; in press. v Scientific Meetings