How do medical professionals justify their involvement with live tissue training?

"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.

Fifteen 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.

Although 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).

There 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.