The Ethics of Animal Research: A Survey of Pediatric Health Care Workers

Nobis, Nathan, Morehouse College
Bara, Meredith, University of Alberta
Joffe, Ari R., University of Alberta
Anton, Natalie, University of Alberta

2014-12-30

2010-2019

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. DESIGN: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P?<?.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered benefits arguments sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same benefits arguments do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened benefits arguments. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by characteristics of non-human-animals arguments, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by human exceptionalism arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special kind, can enter into social contracts, or face a lifeboat situation. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of kind is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind sentient animal or subject-of-a-life]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate. KEYWORDS: Survey, Animals, Animal research, Ethics, Bioethics and Medical Ethics, Ethics and Political Philosophy, Medicine and Health Sciences

text

application/pdf

articles

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

Department of Philosophy

Morehouse College

http://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13010-014-0020-7

10.1186/s13010-014-0020-7

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/mc.ir.fac.pub:2014_nobis_ethics

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/