Journal de médecine vétérinaire et de santé

Abstrait

Exploring the Attitudes of Pediatric Healthcare Workers towards Animal Research

Clara Nobis

Introduction: The utilisation of public monies for animal research is frequently carried out, promoted, and supported by paediatric health care workers (HCW) (AR). We want to know if HCW find popular arguments (and counterarguments) in favour of AR convincing or not.

Design: All paediatricians, nurses working in paediatric intensive care units, and respiratory therapists (RTs) connected to a Canadian university received an email survey after its creation and approval. We included demographic information, reasons in favour of AR, and typical arguments (together with their counterarguments) to support the moral acceptability (or not) of AR. Results are tabulated in accordance with industry standards. Chi-square was used to compare the responses of paediatricians and nurses/RTs, with P .05 being considered significant.

Findings: The response rate for paediatricians was 53/115 (46%), and for nurses and RTs it was 73/120 (61%). Nurses and RTs endorse AR, as do paediatricians. Most people believed that “benefits arguments” were sufficient to support AR; however, most acknowledged that “benefits arguments” were significantly undermined by counterarguments that other research methods might be available or that it is unclear why the same “benefits arguments” do not apply to using humans in research. The “characteristics of non-human animals arguments,” which contend that non-human animals may not be sentient or are merely property, did not persuade the vast majority of people that AR is morally acceptable. Human exceptionalism arguments, such as the fact that people are of a unique “kind,” have better developed mental faculties, are able to form social contracts, and may encounter “lifeboat situations,” could not persuade the majority of people that AR is morally acceptable.

Conclusions: When presented with standard arguments and refutations from the literature, the majority of respondents were not persuaded of the moral acceptability of AR. HCW should give both sides of the AR issue considerable consideration.