Submit to Special Issue Submit Abstract to Special Issue Review for Animals Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Animal Ethics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 July 2025 | Viewed by 31858

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Svenja Springer

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

1. Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal-Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria
2. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Interests: empirical veterinary ethics; veterinary ethics; veterinary professional ethics; clinical ethics consultant services

Prof. Dr. Peter Sandøe

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark
2. Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Interests: animal ethics; animal welfare; social science

Prof. Dr. Herwig Grimm

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor

Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal-Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria
Interests: applied animal ethics; pragmatism in applied ethics, methods of problem-orineted and applied moral philosophy
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Dr. Sonja Hartnack

E-Mail Website1 Website2
Co-Guest Editor

Section of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
Interests: diagnostic test evaluation; bayesian methods; machine learning techniques; professional veterinary medical ethics; animal disease control; mixed methods
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Dr. Barry Kipperman

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor

Veterinary Ethics, University of California at Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Interests: ethical dilemmas of veterinarians; economic influences on animal welfare; brachycephaly

Prof. Dr. Sabine Salloch

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor

Institute of Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
Interests: empirical bioethics methodology; ethical issues at the end of life; medical professionalism; ethics of digitization in health care

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In the past few decades, several areas of applied ethics have taken an empirical turn by using social science research methods, such as questionnaire surveys or interviews, to empirically inform normative reasoning within ethical debates. This has been particularly true in the field of medical ethics, where empirical methods have increasingly been used to situate issues in their various real-life contexts. In parallel, there has been a philosophical discussion about the foundation, meaning, and possible scope of empirical ethics. This discussion particularly addresses how empirically gained facts can contribute to moral knowledge and highlights the necessity of methodological reflections within the field of empirical ethics.

Even though interest in empirical studies of animals and human–animal relationships in academia has been high, until recently, there has been very little work based on empirical data in the fields of applied ethics relating to animals. However, some work has recently emerged in animal ethics and veterinary medical ethics that indicates not only an interest in, but also a demand for empirically informed debates within these fields.

With this Special Issue, we aim to contribute to the development of this empirical turn in the context of animal and veterinary medical ethics. We welcome contributions from the following areas of study:

Reflections on the foundation, meaning or possible scope of empirical animal and veterinary medical ethics;
Guidance and discussion concerning methodologies of empirical animal and veterinary medical ethics;
Reviews of developments within the field of empirical animal and veterinary medical ethics;
Specific studies within the field of empirical animal and veterinary medical ethics including an in-depth and detailed reflection on advantages and limitations of the study design adopted.

Dr. Svenja Springer
Prof. Dr. Peter Sandøe
Prof. Dr. Herwig Grimm
Dr. Sonja Hartnack
Dr. Barry Kipperman
Prof. Dr. Sabine Salloch
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

animal ethics
veterinary ethics
methods applies ethics
qualitative and quantitative research designs

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (9 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

14 pages, 241 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Veterinary Telemedicine in Lithuania: Analysis of the Current Market, Animal Owner Knowledge, and Success Factors for Digital Transformation of Clinics

by Dalia Juodžentė, Evelina Burbaitė, Rolandas Stankevičius, Birutė Karvelienė, Jūratė Rudejevienė and Asta Daunorienė

Animals 2024, 14(13), 1912; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131912 - 28 Jun 2024

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1671

Abstract

Veterinary telemedicine is used to provide animal health care information, education, and care remotely. Digital transformation of veterinary clinics is a fundamental process for the evolution of telemedicine and is changing the way veterinary care and animal health services are delivered. This study aimed to evaluate the current televeterinary market and to assess the knowledge of animal owners and clinic managers. The goals of this study were met by conducting an analysis of the current televeterinary market through a pet owner (n = 200) survey as well as clinic owner (n = 5) interviews. In contrast to other countries, only 1.85% of Lithuanian veterinary clinics offered a paid veterinary remote consultation service on their websites. In addition, more than half of animal owners who participated in the survey did not even know that remote veterinary consultations existed. The most important established factors for the success of digital transformation of veterinary telemedicine were investments in the marketing of the services, management leadership, the competencies and experience of veterinarians, convenient working hours for the client, faster service availability, and lower price. It is recommended to involve marketing and information technology company professionals and to invest in the specialty, digital, and communication skills of veterinarians. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

16 pages, 289 KiB

Open AccessArticle

What Is Wrong with Eating Pets? Wittgensteinian Animal Ethics and Its Need for Empirical Data

by Erich Linder and Herwig Grimm

Animals 2023, 13(17), 2747; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172747 - 29 Aug 2023

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2050

Abstract

Wittgensteinian approaches to animal ethics highlight the significance of practical concepts like ‘pet’, ‘patient’, or ‘companion’ in shaping our understanding of how we should treat non-human animals. For Wittgensteinian animal ethicists, moral principles alone cannot ground moral judgments about our treatment of animals. Instead, moral reflection must begin with acknowledging the practical relations that tie us to animals. Morality emerges within practical contexts. Context-dependent conceptualisations form our moral outlook. In this paper, we argue that Wittgensteinians should, for methodological reasons, pay more attention to empirical data from the social sciences such as sociology, psychology or anthropology. Such data can ground Wittgensteinians’ moral inquiry and thereby render their topical views more dialectically robust. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

18 pages, 295 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Justifying Euthanasia: A Qualitative Study of Veterinarians’ Ethical Boundary Work of “Good” Killing

by Marc J. Bubeck

Animals 2023, 13(15), 2515; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13152515 - 4 Aug 2023

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 5625

Abstract

(1) Veterinarians are regularly required to euthanize their “objects of care” as part of their work, which distinguishes them from other healthcare professionals. This paper examines how veterinarians navigate the ethical tensions inherent in euthanasia, particularly the collision between the routine practice of killing animals within their profession and the broader social and moral implications. (2) Using the sociological concept of ethical boundary work as a theoretical framework, this research observes how veterinarians draw boundaries by positioning their euthanasia practices on the ethical “good” spectrum. A grounded theory study of 17 qualitative interviews with veterinarians was conducted. (3) The findings highlight differences in ethical boundary work within veterinary medicine, particularly in the distinction between farm animals and companion animals. Economic and emotional reasoning play differing roles in explanation and justification. Ethical boundary work is a tool for distinguishing normative frameworks in different areas of veterinary medicine. (4) In conclusion, veterinarians grapple with the realities of an imperfect world and often rely on boundary work to assert diverse interests and navigate multiple contexts. By exploring the complexities of ethical boundary work, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the moral landscape within veterinary practice. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

21 pages, 280 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Reducing Moral Stress in Veterinary Teams? Evaluating the Use of Ethical Discussion Groups in Charity Veterinary Hospitals

by Vanessa Ashall

Animals 2023, 13(10), 1662; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101662 - 17 May 2023

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3179

Abstract

This study examines experiences of veterinary moral stress in charity veterinary practice and qualitatively evaluates the role of ethical discussion in reducing veterinary moral stress. Results are drawn from a thematic data analysis of 9 focus groups and 15 individual interviews with veterinary team members from 3 UK charity veterinary hospitals. Moral stress is described as an everyday experience by participants and is caused by uncertainty about their ability to fulfill their ethical obligations. Moral stress is shown to be cumulative and can interact with other forms of stress. Distinct practical and relational barriers to ethical action are identified and proposed as contributors to moral stress, and different team members experience different barriers within their roles. The potential impact of moral stress on team members’ quality of life and mental health is highlighted. Results show that regular facilitated ethical group discussions may reduce moral stress in the hospital setting, particularly through familiarization with others’ roles and ethical perspectives and through supporting one another’s ethical decision-making. The article concludes that moral stress is an important and poorly understood problem in veterinary practice and that further development of regular facilitated ethical group discussion may be of considerable benefit to team members. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

17 pages, 241 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Putting the Questions First—Flipped Classroom Methods in Animal Ethics Online Teaching and Its Evaluation

by Katharina Dieck and Herwig Grimm

Animals 2023, 13(5), 826; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050826 - 24 Feb 2023

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2277

Abstract

Despite the challenges the pandemic presented for university teaching, it opened up opportunities to set up and explore digital teaching formats like never before. This paper presents a case study of teaching introductory animal ethics in a digital format with flipped-classroom methods. The Interactive Literature Lecturing Format (ILLF) was designed along the following criteria: 1. Conformity with students’ varying educational needs; 2. Consistent high level of interaction; 3. Maximum transparency in an application-oriented exam; 4. No further contribution to the workload of the teaching staff; 5. Flexibility regarding online or on-site conversions. Rather than provide the students with input in lecture sessions, the ILLF presents students with selected literature and a list of structured questions. This literature questionnaire serves as the main didactic element that guides the knowledge transfer, the structure of the sessions and the exam. This paper reviews the outcome of the redesigning process and the steps we took to implement it. To discuss the overall quality of the format from a student’s perspective, the data from the systematically conducted students’ evaluation (n = 65) are interpreted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Bringing these results together with the perspective of the teaching staff, the following question is discussed: did the ILLF meet these criteria? This case study explores the potential and limits of flipped-classroom methods for applied ethics teaching in a university setting. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

13 pages, 266 KiB

Open AccessArticle

“It’s Not Good for the Animals, but I Think It Should Be Done”—Using Focus Group Interviews to Explore Adolescent Views on Animal Experimentation

by Sonja M. Enzinger and Christian Dürnberger

Animals 2022, 12(17), 2233; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172233 - 30 Aug 2022

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 5924

Abstract

The present study focused on an in-depth analysis of adolescents’ (aged 15–16) attitudes towards animal experimentation. Focus group interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding regarding the ethical considerations of this age group. The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. All participants considered their own knowledge about the whole topic as low. Our results show that adolescents in the study had considerably more positive attitudes toward animal experimentation than the literature had suggested. All groups identified positive aspects of animal experimentation and accepted at least one scenario of animal experimentation. Most of the groups rated half of the examples presented as acceptable. The participants tended to make specific assessments in view of a concrete scenario and seemed to form their positions anew. In their discussion, students focused mainly on the following criteria: the relevance of research, the extent of animal suffering, and the existence of alternatives. Generally, we hypothesize that the focus group discussions took place largely within the framework of anthropocentric ethics. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

13 pages, 252 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Reflective Empiricism and Empirical Animal Ethics

by Hannah Winther

Animals 2022, 12(16), 2143; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162143 - 21 Aug 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2759

Abstract

The past few decades have seen a turn to the empirical in applied ethics. This article makes two contributions to debates on this turn: one with regard to methodology and the other with regard to scope. First, it considers empirical bioethics, which arose out of a protest against abstract theorizing in moral philosophy and a call for more sensitivity to lived experience. Though by now an established field, methodological discussions are still centred around the question of how empirical research can inform normative analysis. This article proposes an answer to this question that is based on Iris Murdoch’s criticism of the fact/value distinction and Cora Diamond’s concept of reflective empiricism. Second, the discussion takes as a point of departure a study on genome-edited farmed salmon that uses qualitative research interviews and focus groups. Although there are several animal ethics studies based in empirical data, there are few works on the methodological challenges raised by empirical ethics in this area. The article contributes to these discussions by arguing that reflective empiricism can constitute a methodological approach to animal ethics. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

14 pages, 382 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Compete or Cooperate with ‘Dr. Google’? Small Animal Veterinarians’ Attitudes towards Clients’ Use of Internet Resources—A Comparative Study across Austria, Denmark and the UK

by Svenja Springer, Herwig Grimm, Peter Sandøe, Thomas Bøker Lund, Annemarie T. Kristensen and Sandra A. Corr

Animals 2022, 12(16), 2117; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162117 - 18 Aug 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3164

Abstract

Veterinary medicine is increasingly affected by animal owners having the opportunity to become better informed on pet health issues by using various internet resources. Using an online questionnaire including a section on clients’ use of internet resources to obtain medical information, this study aimed to investigate veterinarians’ estimates of the percentage of clients using internet resources, how often clients question veterinarians’ professional medical advice based on online information, and veterinarians’ attitudes towards clients’ use of internet resources, across Austrian, Danish, and UK veterinarians (n = 641). The results show that 48.8% of respondents estimated that 40–79% of their clients use internet resources to find medical information. Further, 70–80% of respondents stated that they are occasionally challenged by clients questioning their advice based on online information. Although veterinarians recognized the potential advantages related to clients’ use of internet resources, such as an increased acceptance of advanced diagnostics and treatments, they also highlighted clients’ increased expectations or false impressions of small animal practices as potentially negative aspects in this context. As internet use increases, it seems likely that these issues will become increasingly important in the future. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 2822 KiB

Open AccessArticle

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

by Kirsten Persson, Wiebke-Rebekka Gerdts, Sonja Hartnack and Peter Kunzmann

Animals 2022, 12(5), 586; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12050586 - 25 Feb 2022

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2472

Abstract

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. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Empirical Animal and Veterinary Medical Ethics

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (9 papers)

Research

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI