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

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The here presented study was part of a survey on ethical decision making among veterinary students at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation. The students were confronted with challenges in a situation in veterinary practice. Firstly, in the situation, two patients needed a medication but only one dosage was available in the veterinarian’s supply. The students based their decision regarding the first challenge, who should (not) get the medication, on the patients’ age, general health, life expectancy, the patient owners’ wellbeing, and their general knowledge on situations in veterinary practice. Secondly, the students were asked what would change if one of the patients was their own dog. They reacted in four different ways to the question. (1) For a professional, this should not make a difference; (2) they would most likely give the medication to their own dog; (3) they would give the medication to the other dog; and (4) they avoided a decision. Finally, the students judged a list of possible solutions to the dilemma on a scale (from very poor to very good). They preferred those solutions that focused on the animal’s wellbeing to those that focused on the owners’ wellbeing. Overall, it turned out that in situations of limited medication, students make their decisions for very different reasons, and that a guideline for veterinarians to make decisions in such situations is still missing. ABSTRACT: 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.