Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Health
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)
  • Review Article   
  • J Vet Med Health 2023, Vol 7(2): 173

Exploring the Attitudes of Pediatric Healthcare Workers towards Animal Research

Clara Nobis*
Department of Philosophy, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, USA, Community Health & Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
*Corresponding Author : Clara Nobis, Department of Philosophy, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, USA, Community Health & Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA, Email: nobis@gmail.com

Received Date: Mar 05, 2023 / Accepted Date: Mar 29, 2023 / Published Date: Mar 30, 2023

Abstract

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.

Citation: Nobis C (2023) Exploring the Attitudes of Pediatric Healthcare Workers towards Animal Research. J Vet Med Health 7: 175.

Copyright: © 2023 Nobis C. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Top