Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education
Laboratory classes in which animals are seriously harmed or killed, or which use cadavers or body parts from ethically debatable sources, are controversial within veterinary and other biomedical curricula. Along with the development of more humane teaching methods, this has increasingly led to objec...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/4/1/16 |
| _version_ | 1819156956349202432 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrew Knight |
| author_facet | Andrew Knight |
| author_sort | Andrew Knight |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Laboratory classes in which animals are seriously harmed or killed, or which use cadavers or body parts from ethically debatable sources, are controversial within veterinary and other biomedical curricula. Along with the development of more humane teaching methods, this has increasingly led to objections to participation in harmful animal use. Such cases raise a host of issues of importance to universities, including those pertaining to curricular design and course accreditation, and compliance with applicable animal welfare and antidiscrimination legislation. Accordingly, after detailed investigation, some universities have implemented formal policies to guide faculty responses to such cases, and to ensure that decisions are consistent and defensible from legal and other policy perspectives. However, many other institutions have not yet done so, instead dealing with such cases on an ad hoc basis as they arise. Among other undesirable outcomes this can lead to insufficient student and faculty preparation, suboptimal and inconsistent responses, and greater likelihood of legal challenge. Accordingly, this paper provides pertinent information about the evolution of conscientious objection policies within Australian veterinary schools, and about the jurisprudential bases for conscientious objection within Australia and the USA. It concludes with recommendations for the development and implementation of policy within this arena. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:01:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6676530465104179ba8fd77bee0af110 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:01:06Z |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj.art-6676530465104179ba8fd77bee0af1102022-12-21T18:20:41ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152014-01-0141163410.3390/ani4010016ani4010016Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical EducationAndrew Knight0Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 334, Basseterre, St Kitts, West IndiesLaboratory classes in which animals are seriously harmed or killed, or which use cadavers or body parts from ethically debatable sources, are controversial within veterinary and other biomedical curricula. Along with the development of more humane teaching methods, this has increasingly led to objections to participation in harmful animal use. Such cases raise a host of issues of importance to universities, including those pertaining to curricular design and course accreditation, and compliance with applicable animal welfare and antidiscrimination legislation. Accordingly, after detailed investigation, some universities have implemented formal policies to guide faculty responses to such cases, and to ensure that decisions are consistent and defensible from legal and other policy perspectives. However, many other institutions have not yet done so, instead dealing with such cases on an ad hoc basis as they arise. Among other undesirable outcomes this can lead to insufficient student and faculty preparation, suboptimal and inconsistent responses, and greater likelihood of legal challenge. Accordingly, this paper provides pertinent information about the evolution of conscientious objection policies within Australian veterinary schools, and about the jurisprudential bases for conscientious objection within Australia and the USA. It concludes with recommendations for the development and implementation of policy within this arena.http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/4/1/16veterinary educationveterinary curriculumconscientious objectionhumane teaching methods3Rs |
| spellingShingle | Andrew Knight Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education Animals veterinary education veterinary curriculum conscientious objection humane teaching methods 3Rs |
| title | Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education |
| title_full | Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education |
| title_fullStr | Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education |
| title_full_unstemmed | Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education |
| title_short | Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education |
| title_sort | conscientious objection to harmful animal use within veterinary and other biomedical education |
| topic | veterinary education veterinary curriculum conscientious objection humane teaching methods 3Rs |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/4/1/16 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrewknight conscientiousobjectiontoharmfulanimalusewithinveterinaryandotherbiomedicaleducation |