ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023
Justifying Euthanasia: A Qualitative Study of Veterinarians' Ethical Boundary Work of "Good" Killing.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiencing Violence from Animal Owners in Veterinary Medicine: Results of a Nationwide Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Indicators of mortality risk in ageing horses.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Veterinary Ethics in Practice: Euthanasia Decision Making for Companion and Street Dogs in Istanbul.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Pet, Pest, Profit: Patient! How Attitudes Toward Animals Among Veterinary Students in the Netherlands Differ According to Animal Categories and Student-Related Variables.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- The Dual Character of Animal-Centred Care: Relational Approaches in Veterinary and Animal Sanctuary Work.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Influences on the Decision to Euthanize a Compromised Pig.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Landscape review about the decision to euthanize a compromised pig.Porcine health management · 2024Review
- Perceptions of swine euthanasia among Brazilian caretakers from non-integrated swine farms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.