Paste your essaEthics in the veterinary profession is a system or moral principles that apply integrity and comprehension to the practice of veterinary medicine. Veterinary ethics hem in its practical application in clinical settings as a scholarly discipline. Veterinary ethics combines both ethics of the veterinary professionals and the subject of animal ethics (Yeates 2012). Animal welfare have been documented as a subject regularly as philosophers have commented on its importance. Within the veterinary profession they are numerous scenarios that veterinary nurses come across every day. Morals are the standards of behaviour. These are the principles of right and wrong where veterinary nurses meet every day. The acts of right and wrong actions fall into this. So regarding ethics every person has a set of principles that create a person’s behaviour regarding an activity (Wood 2011). They are various factors that affect a person’s morals and ethical look on a situations.
These could be any of the following:
1. Personality- A person’s personality can effect on how they react in a particular manner in a situation. Such as a person that has a short temper can over react in a moral or ethical situation.
2. Religion- Religion can play a major part in a person’s affect during a situation. The moral code that is followed by Jehovah’s Witness’s states that they refuse blood transfusions and this also falls into the area of animals as they do not believe in the use of blood transfusions in animals. A patient may require a blood transfusion but under their moral code this would not be allowed.
3. Family- A person’s ethical views are moulded throughout their upbringing. A families ethical views can be passed onto another member of the family. A father may not believe in vaccinating their dog as this is something that they never have done. The son has this view also. But the dog is being put at risk for various diseases.
4. Life experiences of the individual- Certain life experiences can have a great effect on a person’s ethical standards and quality of values.
Veterinary nurses come across various situations on a daily basis that would affect and challenge their morals, values and standard of ethics. One case that was encountered in practice was a patient who reached a level of critical care and required a blood transfusion. A blood transfusion was necessary to be performed in order for that patient to be treated and managed correctly (Wathes,C et al 2012). The patient’s owner was a practising Jehovah’s Witness and lived with her father. This scenario had a great impact on the various stakeholders within and outside the veterinary practice. A stakeholder is defined as ‘’a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business”. Any decision within a veterinary practice will always involve a group of people and animals and these are referred as stakeholders. These are affected by the activity of the business (RCVS 2016).
Regarding this scenario the following where the stakeholders that were involved in this case which were the following:
1. The patient- This patient was a young 2year old Labrador retriever. This patient was admitted into practice after a road traffic accident. The patient suffered from various internal and external injuries that allowed a severe amount of blood loss to occur. A blood transfusion was required in order to replace the volume that was lost. Surgery allowed the veterinary surgeon to fix internal wounds but PCV was low. If the patient received a blood transfusion a full recovery would be achieved. The patient is the most important stakeholder.
2. The client- The client was a practising Jehovah’s witnesses and the moral code followed by does not allow them to receive blood transfusions nor allow animals to receive blood transfusions. The client was torn between her beliefs and the understanding that her pet can be saved but this would mean her breaking her moral code of her religion. The client was stressed and her father who also followed this moral code would not allow her to give permission for the treatment to be performed (BBC 2009).
3. The practice- The veterinary practice involved has its own moral code to follow by and follows the code of conduct from the RCVS. The practice itself, the owner would perform this treatment despite the clients religious views as animal welfare was an issue. This would fall under the theory of Deontological as the principle of this is right or wrong is determined by something other than certain consequences such as religion and god. (Pullen et al. 2006).
4. The nurse and colleagues- Regarding this situation they were numerous veterinary nurses that were involved. These were the clinical nurse and medical nurses. This scenario has massive effects on these members of staff as they could see how a blood transfusion would benefit this patient and this would affect one of the five freedoms in animal welfare of freedom from pain, injury and disease(). The treatment would allow the patient to become better and survive and be allowed to live for many years. The nurses’ colleagues also had this view of treating the patient despite of the owner’s religious views (MacDoland 2013).
5. The public- Not everyone has these religious views and morals. Some of the public that were in the waiting room could not understand nor respect the client’s religious views. Some members of the public were quite vocal regarding the route of treatment as the client was very distressed in the waiting room. Some members disagreed as it was not financial barriers that were not allowing the patient to be treated but religious views.
(Wager 2011), (Pullen et al.2006)
They are two ethical schools of thought that can be applied into this scenario and these have various principles that are applied to each one. These are deontology and utilitarianism (Syracuse 1995). Deontology is based on the work of Immanuel Kant. All deontologists believe that there are rules that must be followed. No matter what the consequences of the action may be from a situation. Under this school of thought it is believed that it is wrong to lie and that it would not be in society’s best interest to lie. Within the veterinary field and regarding animal rights, deontology asserts that you should do your duty even if others suffer as a consequence of this action (Shakil 2010). Actions in deontology regarding people states that human emotions, inclinations and consequences should play no role in moral actions. So in theory within this scenario if the veterinary surgeon lies to the owner and proceeds with the blood transfusion the patient would survive but a lie would have been committed. If this would have happened then the veterinary surgeon and the veterinary nurses would have broken the universal law that states that it is wrong to lie. But in this situation they are two conflicting rules that could apply in this scenario which are:
1. It is wrong to lie?
2. It is wrong to not provide lifesaving treatment to an animal?(Greet 2011).
In this situation they are serious legal implications alongside serious professional implications for the veterinary surgeon and the veterinary nurses as they work under the instruction of the veterinary surgeon in not carrying out an owners request on not to perform the procedure and not telling the truth (Panaman et al 2008).
Another school of thought that can also fall into this scenario would be utilitarianism. This ethical theory states that an action is morally right if it benefits the greatest number of beings with the greatest good (Philosophy 2010).This is done by working out the amount of suffering/pleasure you think your actions may cause. The decision that gives the most pleasure and least suffering would be seen as the right action to be performed. So with the scenario it would work out that the amount of benefits would be higher that suffering. The patient would receive its blood transfusion and live as the patient is the most important stakeholder in this scenario. The owner would continue to have the dog as companionship for many years. The veterinary team would save their patient and this is what we are trained to do. The suffering would be that the owners beliefs would have been broken which does not outweigh the benefits. But this would be different if the patient was older as then the quality of the patients life would have to be assessed first (Panamam et al.2008).
Within this scenario they are various improvements that could have been made to the way in which the scenario could have been managed. The veterinary surgeon could have offered to rehome the patient to a member of staff. As this would allow the patient to be treated as necessary and the pressure of the clients moral code would have been lessened. But it was quite difficult as a major percentage of the veterinary team did not fully understand the rules or beliefs of the religion so this was a major communication barrier for both the veterinary team and the client. But it again depends on the strength of the belief of the client (Macdoland 2013). Some do not allow blood transfusions for people as it states in the bible but there is no directive for pets. The client’s father was present and he stated that no animal should have blood transfusions. This is why the offering of rehoming was not offered by the veterinary surgeon, firstly the veterinary surgeon was newly qualified so this situation was very intimidating for her and secondly the client was rather upset as her mind was made up to not to perform the procedure to the patient prior over the telephone. The route of euthanasia was also offered but euthanasia is looked at mercy killing and this is banned in their religion. We were not breaking one of the five freedoms of freedom from pain, injury or disease as the patient’s condition was managed and was having the necessary pain relief (Greet 2011). But we were breaking another freedom of fear and distress (Macdoland 2013). If the procedure was not an option then the route to euthanize based on animal welfare needed to be looked at regardless of the client’s views.
During this scenario I was the medical nurse on this case. I nursed this patient from admit and closely nursed for three days. I myself are religious but my religious views is something that I do not bring forward into work. Veterinary nurses are trained to help and treat animals and this case was very difficult for me to be part of. Firstly the patient was young with no other existing health issues and was responding very well to other forms of treatment and secondly a blood transfusion would certainly allowed the patient to live. This case was very frustrating as on day two the patients packed cell volume was decreasing to a very low percentage of 19%. If the patient’s percentage decreased to 15% a blood transfusion would need to be offered (Canning 2012). This information was communicated to the patient’s owner (E.Rollin 2005). The owner declined the blood transfusion on the basis of it would break her moral code. This was communicated to the veterinary team. I did not agree to this as my first line of thought is if blood transfusions are breaking the moral code why would this client have a pet. Knowing that there was a potential risk at some point of the future that this animal may need a blood transfusion. I communicated with the qualified veterinary nurse and offered to rehome the patient but the veterinary surgeon refused to bring this forward to the client. This frustrated both myself and the rest of the veterinary team .Within the team we were all frustrated as if we went ahead with the transfusion and not inform the client of this then we would have lied and this could have serious professional and legal issues towards the team especially myself as an unqualified veterinary nurse. I understood of the ethical views of this case and how animal welfare is extremely important so the route to euthanize was done despite the clients view regarding to euthanise. This was upsetting as there was an offer of saving the patient but us all must try and respect other people’s beliefs even if we do not follow them. I refused to take part to euthanise this patient as I closely nursed this patient for a couple of days and I felt that my hands were tied and it goes against my training as a veterinary nurse. Yes the patient was critically ill and we were capable of performing a treatment that would give this patient many years to live but religion and the law prevented us. Others may look at that we should dismiss religious views and treat as we see fit but unfortunately pets still fall under old English law and are viewed as property.