ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
How do medical professionals justify their involvement with live tissue training?
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'Not the basic ABC of how you control a blood vessel': perceptions of UK Defence Medical Services personnel toward live tissue training for the surgical management of trauma.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Live tissue training" (LTT) is simulation that uses a live anaesthetised animal in place of a human patient. It is a training practice which is significantly contested, but continues to occur despite availability of alternative simulator models. The aim of this study was to explore if, and how, medical professionals who participate in LTT justify their own professional involvement.
methodsFifteen semi-structured interviews of physicians who had knowledge and prior experience of LTT were performed as part of a wider research project and initially analysed using the Framework Method. Data categorised as 'ethical views' underwent a secondary thematic analysis to answer this research aim. Data were grouped by similar meaning to produce themes in the form of beliefs or views expressed by the participants.
resultsAlthough no participant used language to explicitly indicate moral theorising, there is a set of identifiable coherent beliefs/views among the cohort. A belief that training must be conducted in order to save human patients' lives (1); that human life is of higher value than animal life (2); and that there is no sufficiently good alternative to LTT (3). It is felt that LTT is reasonable as the numbers of animals used are minimised and opportunities for learning or other uses maximised (4); animals are well cared for and are not suffering (5) and reasonable in comparison to other animal uses (6).
conclusionThere is a predominant consequentialist thinking regarding the use of live animals, with evidence that the 3Rs principles are being considered, if not explicitly, as a restriction on the use of animals for LTT and also partly to justify or defend medical professionals' involvement. We suggest that professional identity is likely to have a role in forming these justificatory arguments, but personal views about the moral standing of animals and notions of speciesism could also influence decisions about being involved in LTT.
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.