Bartram, D.J., Yadegarfar, G., Baldwin, D.S., (2009). Psychosocial working conditions and work-related stressors among UK veterinary surgeons. Occupational Medicine 59: 334-341.
Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F., (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Bergman, E.J., Fiester, A., (2014). The future of clinical ethics education: value pluralism, communication, and mediation. In: Akabayashi, A. (ed.), The future of bioethics: international dialogues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 703-711.
Dubler, N.N., Liebman, C.B., (2011). Bioethics mediation: a guide to shaping shared solutions, revised and expanded edition. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, USA.
Fiester, A., (2014). Bioethics mediation & the end of clinical ethics as we know it. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 15.2: 501-513.
Fournier, V., (2016). Clinical ethics: methods. In: ten Have, H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 553-562.
Grimm, H., Bergadano, A., Musk, G.C., Otto, K., Taylor, P.M., Duncan, J.C., (2018). Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party. Veterinary Record 182: 664.
Grimm, H., Olsson, I.A.S., Sandoe, P., (2019). Harm-benefit analysis – what is the added value?. A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research. Laboratory Animals 53: 17-27.
Jensen, K.K., Forsberg, E.-M., Gamborg, C., Millar, K., Sandoe, P., (2011). Facilitating ethical reflection among scientists using the ethical matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 425-445.
Mepham, B., Kaiser, M., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., Millar, K., (2006). Ethical Matrix manual. LEI, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Molewijk, B., Slowther, A., Aulisio, M., (2016). Clinical ethics: support. In: ten Have, H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 562-570.
Molewijk, B., van Zadelhoff, E., Lendemeijer, B., Widdershoven, G., (2008). Implementing moral case deliberation in Dutch health care; improving moral competency of professionals and the quality of care. Bioethica Forum 1: 57-65.
Moses, L., (2018). Another experience in resolving veterinary ethical dilemmas: observations from a veterinarian performing ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 18: 67-69.
O’Connor, E., (2019). Sources of work stress in veterinary practice in the UK. Veterinary Record 184: 588.
Porz, R., Landeweer, E., Widdershoven, G., (2011). Theory and practice of clinical ethics support services: narrative and hermeneutical perspectives. Bioethics 25: 354-360.
Rosoff, P.M., Moga, J., Keene, B., Adin, C., Fogle, C., Ruderman, R., Hopkinso, H., Weyhrauch, C., (2018). Resolving ethical dilemmas in a tertiary care veterinary specialty hospital: adaptation of the human clinical consultation committee model. The American Journal of Bioethics 18: 41-53.
Springer, S., Auer, U., Jenner, F., Grimm, H., (2018). Clinical ethics support services in veterinary practice. In: Springer, S., Grimm, H. (eds.), Professionals in Food Chains. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, June 13-16, 2018. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 308-313.
Stolper, M., Molewijk, B., Widdershoven, G., (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Med Ethics 17: 45.
53. Case discussions in a clinical ethics support service for equine medicine: a field report
In: Transforming food systems: ethics, innovation and responsibilitySearch for other papers by M. Long in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by F. Jenner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Z. Kelemen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by J.-M. Cavalleri in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by U. Auer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by H. Grimm in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have recently found their way from human into veterinary medicine to assist with ethically challenging decisions. However, literature is scarce on structures for veterinary CESS that detail what case discussions and their outcomes, in an ethics committee or with stakeholders, can look like. The aim of this work is to report and discuss a process for case discussions with stakeholders and an impartial facilitator based on experiences with a CESS in an equine hospital. We applied six steps during these case discussions: (1) introducing method and participants; (2) describing the problematic situation and associated goals; (3) collecting propective treatment options; (4) discussing options; (5) developing an action plan with corresponding checkpoints; (6) concluding the discussion. The intended outcome of this process is agreement on an action plan which details the horse’s treatment in the form of scenarios with checkpoints for evaluating treatment success at specified time points and based on clinical parameters defined in the case discussion. In combination with ethics tools, this 6-step process has the potential to be a powerful tool for supporting challenging decisions in veterinary medicine by combining metric and discourse models of decision-making and resulting in well-considered and transparent outcomes.