"What If It Was Your Dog?" Resource Shortages and Decision-Making in Veterinary Medicine-A Vignette Study with German Veterinary Students.

The here presented vignette study was part of a survey on ethical judgement skills among advanced veterinary students at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation. The vignette describes a fictitious dilemma in veterinary practice due to medication supply shortages. First, the students should make an ethically justified decision: who of the two patients in the waiting room gets the last dosage of a medication. Important factors were the animal patients' characteristics (age, state of health, life expectancy), the patient owners' wellbeing, and context-related criteria. Second, the students were asked for decisional changes if one of the patients was their own dog. They reacted in four different ways: (1) for a professional, this should not make a difference; (2) most likely being "egoistic" and preferring their own dog; (3) giving the medication to the other dog; and (4) avoiding a decision. Finally, the students judged a list of possible solutions to the dilemma on a 9-point scale. They preferred patient-related criteria to patient-owner-related criteria in this task. In the overall results, it became obvious that no "gold standard" or guidelines for situations of medication shortages exist, yet, which presents an important subject for future research and veterinary ethics teaching.

Assessing Moral Judgements in Veterinary Students: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study from Germany.

Although veterinary ethics is required in veterinary curricula and part of the competencies expected of a trained veterinary surgeon according to the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE), knowledge concerning the effects of ethics teaching and tools evaluating moral judgement are scarce. To address this lack of tools with a mixed-methods approach, a questionnaire with three case scenarios presenting typical ethical conflicts of veterinary practice was administered to two groups of veterinary students (one had taken ethics classes, one did not). The questionnaire contained both open-ended and closed questions and was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative part aimed at revealing different argumentation patterns between the two groups, whereas the quantitative part focused on the students' approval of different roles and attitudes possibly relating to veterinarians. The results showed no major differences between both groups. However, answering patterns suggest a clear diversity among the students in their perception of morally relevant factors and the veterinary profession. Awareness of morally challenging elements of their profession was presented by students of both groups. With this exploratory study, the application of an innovative mixed-methods tool for evaluating the moral judgement of veterinary medical students is demonstrated.

[Intradermal versus intramuscular vaccine application in suckling piglets - Comparison with regard to dermal reactions, performance and procedural aspects]. / Intradermale versus intramuskuläre Impfstoffapplikation bei Saugferkeln.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was the scientific evaluation of an intradermal vaccination method in comparison to an intramuscular vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in suckling piglets with regard to skin reactions, performance parameters and procedural aspects. Possible effects on animal welfare should be deduced. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Under field conditions, 672 suckling piglets in three batches were vaccinated; 338 intradermally and 334 intramuscularly. In addition to a detailed scoring of the integument, the injection site with the local reaction was evaluated, scoring the swelling size (score 0-5), and rubor and incrustation (score 0-3). Moreover, piglets were weighed individually 1 day before vaccination and 8 days later. In addition, the time required for each vaccination was documented. RESULTS: On the first day after vaccination, 71.3 % of the intramuscularly vaccinated piglets and 2.7 % of the intradermally vaccinated piglets displayed no swelling at the vaccination site. No differences remained by the 7th day after vaccination. Daily weight gain did not differ significantly between the piglets in the intramuscularly (248 g) and intradermally (258 g) vaccinated groups. Intradermal vaccination took a mean of 11 seconds per piglet, while 17 seconds were required for intramuscular vaccination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this first study, no negative effects of the intradermal vaccination on performance parameters and no long-standing skin reactions were detected in the suckling piglets. Skin reactions were related to the desired immune reaction of the intradermal vaccination, but were no longer present after 7 days. Moreover, with regard to procedural aspects, the intradermal vaccination offered time saving advantages. To evaluate further possible effects on animal welfare, further analyses via video recordings are required.