Christiansen Stine Billeschou, Kristensen Annemarie Thuri, Lassen Jesper, Sandøe Peter
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Dyrlægevej 16, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Acta Vet Scand. 2016 May 25;58(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13028-016-0211-x.
When companion animals become seriously ill clients may have doubts about treatment choices, if any, and turn to veterinarians for help. But how should veterinarians reply? Influence on clients' decision-making may or may not be acceptable-depending on one's attitude to principles such as 'paternalism', 'respect for autonomy' and 'shared decision-making'. This study takes as a starting point a situation where the animal is chronically ill, or aged, with potentially reduced animal welfare and client quality of life, and thus where clients need to consider treatment options or euthanasia. It is assumed throughout that both veterinarians and clients have the animals' best interest at heart. The purpose of the study was to explore the challenges these situations hold and to investigate how clients experience veterinary influence. A second aim was to reflect on the ethical implications of the role of veterinarians in these situations. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 dog owners considering treatment or euthanasia of their chronically ill or aged dogs.
Challenges relating to the dog and to the client were identified. Some situations left the interviewees hesitant, e.g. if lacking a clear cut-off point, the dog appeared normal, the interviewee felt uncertain about treatments or animal welfare, or experienced conflicting concerns. Some interviewees found that veterinarians could influence their decisions. Such influence was received in different ways by the interviewees. Some interviewees wanted active involvement of the veterinarian in the decision-making process, and this may challenge a veterinarian's wish to respect client autonomy.
Different preferences are likely to exist amongst both veterinarians and clients about veterinary involvement in clients' decision-making, and such preferences may vary according to the situation. It is suggested, that one way to handle this challenge is to include respect for client preference on veterinary involvement under a wider understanding of respect for autonomy, and to apply models of shared decision-making to veterinary practice. In any case there is a need to further explore the challenges these situations raise, and for the veterinary profession to engage in more formal and structured deliberation over the role of veterinarians in relation to clients' decision-making.
当伴侣动物身患重病时,宠物主人可能会对治疗方案(若有)心存疑虑,并向兽医寻求帮助。但兽医应如何回应呢?对宠物主人决策的影响可能被接受,也可能不被接受,这取决于个人对“家长式作风”“尊重自主权”和“共同决策”等原则的态度。本研究以动物患有慢性病或年老、动物福利和宠物主人生活质量可能降低,因此宠物主人需要考虑治疗方案或安乐死的情况为出发点。始终假定兽医和宠物主人都将动物的最大利益放在心上。本研究的目的是探讨这些情况所带来的挑战,并调查宠物主人如何体验兽医的影响。第二个目的是思考兽医在这些情况下的角色所涉及的伦理问题。对12位考虑对其患有慢性病或年老的狗进行治疗或安乐死的狗主人进行了定性访谈。
确定了与狗和宠物主人相关的挑战。有些情况让受访者犹豫不决,例如,如果没有明确的临界点,狗看起来正常,受访者对治疗或动物福利感到不确定,或者经历了相互冲突的担忧。一些受访者发现兽医可以影响他们的决定。受访者以不同方式接受这种影响。一些受访者希望兽医积极参与决策过程,而这可能会挑战兽医尊重宠物主人自主权的意愿。
兽医和宠物主人对于兽医参与宠物主人决策可能存在不同偏好,而且这些偏好可能因情况而异。建议应对这一挑战的一种方法是,在对尊重自主权的更广泛理解下,将尊重宠物主人对兽医参与的偏好纳入其中,并将共同决策模式应用于兽医实践。无论如何,有必要进一步探讨这些情况所带来的挑战,并且兽医行业需要就兽医在宠物主人决策方面的角色进行更正式和结构化的审议。