How do medical professionals justify their involvement with live tissue training?

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
C S Swain, G Helgesson
{"title":"How do medical professionals justify their involvement with live tissue training?","authors":"C S Swain, G Helgesson","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01304-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>\"Live tissue training\" (LTT) is simulation that uses a live anaesthetised animal in place of a human patient. It is a training practice which is significantly contested, but continues to occur despite availability of alternative simulator models. The aim of this study was to explore if, and how, medical professionals who participate in LTT justify their own professional involvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen semi-structured interviews of physicians who had knowledge and prior experience of LTT were performed as part of a wider research project and initially analysed using the Framework Method. Data categorised as 'ethical views' underwent a secondary thematic analysis to answer this research aim. Data were grouped by similar meaning to produce themes in the form of beliefs or views expressed by the participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although no participant used language to explicitly indicate moral theorising, there is a set of identifiable coherent beliefs/views among the cohort. A belief that training must be conducted in order to save human patients' lives (1); that human life is of higher value than animal life (2); and that there is no sufficiently good alternative to LTT (3). It is felt that LTT is reasonable as the numbers of animals used are minimised and opportunities for learning or other uses maximised (4); animals are well cared for and are not suffering (5) and reasonable in comparison to other animal uses (6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a predominant consequentialist thinking regarding the use of live animals, with evidence that the 3Rs principles are being considered, if not explicitly, as a restriction on the use of animals for LTT and also partly to justify or defend medical professionals' involvement. We suggest that professional identity is likely to have a role in forming these justificatory arguments, but personal views about the moral standing of animals and notions of speciesism could also influence decisions about being involved in LTT.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"126"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01304-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: "Live tissue training" (LTT) is simulation that uses a live anaesthetised animal in place of a human patient. It is a training practice which is significantly contested, but continues to occur despite availability of alternative simulator models. The aim of this study was to explore if, and how, medical professionals who participate in LTT justify their own professional involvement.

Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews of physicians who had knowledge and prior experience of LTT were performed as part of a wider research project and initially analysed using the Framework Method. Data categorised as 'ethical views' underwent a secondary thematic analysis to answer this research aim. Data were grouped by similar meaning to produce themes in the form of beliefs or views expressed by the participants.

Results: Although no participant used language to explicitly indicate moral theorising, there is a set of identifiable coherent beliefs/views among the cohort. A belief that training must be conducted in order to save human patients' lives (1); that human life is of higher value than animal life (2); and that there is no sufficiently good alternative to LTT (3). It is felt that LTT is reasonable as the numbers of animals used are minimised and opportunities for learning or other uses maximised (4); animals are well cared for and are not suffering (5) and reasonable in comparison to other animal uses (6).

Conclusion: There is a predominant consequentialist thinking regarding the use of live animals, with evidence that the 3Rs principles are being considered, if not explicitly, as a restriction on the use of animals for LTT and also partly to justify or defend medical professionals' involvement. We suggest that professional identity is likely to have a role in forming these justificatory arguments, but personal views about the moral standing of animals and notions of speciesism could also influence decisions about being involved in LTT.

医疗专业人员如何证明他们参与活体组织培训的合理性?
背景:“活体组织训练”(LTT)是用活体麻醉动物代替人类患者的模拟。这是一种备受争议的训练实践,尽管有替代模拟器模型,但仍在继续发生。本研究的目的是探讨参与LTT的医疗专业人员是否以及如何证明他们自己的专业参与。方法:作为一个更广泛的研究项目的一部分,对具有LTT知识和先前经验的医生进行了15次半结构化访谈,并使用框架方法进行了初步分析。归类为“伦理观点”的数据进行了二次主题分析,以回答这一研究目标。数据按类似的含义分组,以参与者表达的信念或观点的形式产生主题。结果:虽然没有参与者使用语言明确表示道德理论化,但在队列中有一组可识别的连贯信念/观点。相信必须进行培训以挽救人类患者的生命(1);人的生命比动物的生命更有价值(2);并且没有足够好的替代LTT(3)。我们认为LTT是合理的,因为使用的动物数量最少,学习或其他用途的机会最大(4);动物得到很好的照顾,没有痛苦(5),与其他动物用途相比(6)是合理的(6)。结论:关于活体动物的使用,结果主义思想占主导地位,有证据表明,3r原则正在被考虑,如果不是明确的,作为对动物用于LTT的限制,也在一定程度上证明或捍卫医疗专业人员的参与。我们认为,职业身份可能在形成这些正当性论点方面发挥作用,但个人对动物道德地位和物种主义观念的看法也可能影响参与LTT的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信