Premium
Comments on the dilemma in the May issue: ‘Accommodating cultural differences of opinion’
Author(s) -
Antillon Gabriela Olmos
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
in practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.211
H-Index - 25
eISSN - 2042-7689
pISSN - 0263-841X
DOI - 10.1136/inp.e3234
Subject(s) - dilemma , public relations , diversity (politics) , opinion leadership , action (physics) , welfare , set (abstract data type) , animal welfare , ethical dilemma , balance (ability) , work (physics) , political science , psychology , social psychology , law , mechanical engineering , ecology , philosophy , physics , epistemology , quantum mechanics , neuroscience , computer science , biology , programming language , engineering
The dilemma in the May issue concerned cultural and religious differences of opinion during veterinary work overseas (In Practice, May 2012, volume 34, pages 310–311 ). While working for an animal charity in a developing country, there were disagreements between you and the local staff employed by the charity over the best course of action to improve animal welfare. Kimberly Wells commented that you should try to accommodate these differences when making decisions about individual cases and practice policy, remembering that everyone working there should have the same professional and charitable goal: an improvement in animal welfare. However, it could sometimes be difficult to find a balance between respecting equality and diversity and doing the right thing for the animal. People needed to balance personal, professional and charitable obligations in the decision‐making process, and these obligations would differ in line with cultural and religious beliefs. Taking these factors into consideration would help people to respect and understand the views of others, and differences of opinion could actually be strong drivers for positive change. It was important to communicate effectively with everyone involved with the care of the animal and to recognise how your actions were perceived. Cooperation was key, and activities such as icebreakers, brainstorms and simulations might provide insights into shared beliefs, help to set expectations and guide future decisions. Using an ethical matrix would also help inform decisions and allow you to justify them to others if necessary. Ultimately, you might have to agree to disagree, which would be fine as long as animal welfare was not truly compromised.