Education at its best is not only the transfer of knowledge, but the widening of perspective – an invitation to expand our circles of care from self to community, to all sentient beings and to the planet we share.
Yet for some students, this ideal meets a difficult reality.
For many students entering fields such as psychology, veterinary science, biomedical research, agricultural studies and related disciplines, the journey often begins with a focus on gaining skills, knowledge and competence. But once their studies begin, they may be confronted with teaching practices that involve the use of animals in ways that cause them concern – from invasive procedures without anesthesia, to animals bred solely for dissection to cadavers sourced from the racing industry.
Such moments can ignite a profound ethical conflict: the drive to progress academically on one hand, and the deep unease – or outright objection – to the treatment of animals on the other. This is where the tension between learning and conscience comes sharply into focus.
Moral distress: ‘If I spoke out, I might fail the course’
In essence, moral distress is not about uncertainty over what’s right – it’s about being unable to do what one believes is right (Montoya et al., 2019). Without safeguards like a clear conscientious objection (CO) policy, many students may choose to remain silent about their ethical concerns.
In the university setting, it can emerge when a student is required to perform or observe a procedure they believe causes unnecessary suffering.
'I knew it wasn’t necessary to perform that procedure without anaesthetic, but saying anything felt like signing away my future in this course.'
Students may also worry about academic penalties or being labelled as ‘unfit’ for their chosen profession. This can create cognitive dissonance – mental and emotional strain that comes from behaving in ways that conflict with one’s own deeply held values (Montoya et al., 2019).
'We were told the animals were bred for us to dissect. I couldn’t stop thinking about the fact that they were alive just weeks ago - and now my grades depended on cutting them open.'
The hidden cost of moral distress
Research among veterinary workers shows that moral distress is linked to burnout, disengagement and mental health decline (Bartram & Baldwin, 2008; Brscic et al., 2021; Deacon & Brough, 2017; Hilton et al., 2022; Mastenbroek et al., 2014). Over time, this unresolved inner conflict can chip away at empathy – ironically undermining one of the very qualities these professions aim to nurture. For students, the impact is not just emotional – it can derail academic progress and even career plans in some of the following ways:
❎ Reduced engagement – Avoiding classes or practicals that trigger distress.
'I’d skip certain labs because I couldn’t face watching it happen again.'
❎ Declining performance – Struggling to focus or retain information due to ongoing emotional strain.
'Even when I was there, my mind was somewhere else - thinking about the animals instead of the lecture.'
❎ Loss of professional confidence – Questioning whether one belongs in the field at all.
'If being a good vet means shutting down my empathy, maybe I’m not cut out for this.'
❎ Early withdrawal – In some cases, leaving the course entirely to escape the conflict.
'I loved the subject, but I couldn’t keep compromising my values. So I left.'
Moral distress, left unaddressed, doesn’t just affect individual wellbeing – it reshapes career trajectories. In doing so, it can quietly filter out some of the most values-driven future professionals.
Why a CO policy matters: 'I knew it was wrong, but I couldn't risk speaking up'
'In that lab, I just froze. I knew what we were about to do wasn’t right, but if I spoke up, I could fail the unit. So I kept quiet, and hated myself for it.'
For many students, the reluctance to raise a conscientious objection is not about a lack of conviction – it is about the very real risks they perceive in doing so. In academic environments, systemic power imbalances can make silence feel safer than honesty in some of the following ways:
- Hierarchical dynamics – Academic staff and supervisors hold significant influence over grades, references and career opportunities.
- Cultural norms – In some faculties, questioning long-standing teaching practices can be seen as a lack of commitment to the profession.
- Peer influence – Students may fear ridicule or exclusion if they are perceived as “too sensitive” or “anti-science”.
In this climate, the cost of speaking up can feel higher than the cost of participating in an activity that conflicts with one’s values, even when the ethical stakes are high.
A CO policy changes this equation.
In the educational context, a CO policy may allow students to refuse participation in activities they believe are ethically wrong – without academic penalty – and to access alternative learning methods. In animal-based teaching, this might mean a student may choose high-quality simulations, ethically-sourced cadavers (such as from animals who died naturally or via euthanasia for medical reasons) or observational learning in place of live animal experimentation.
The sample CO policy developed by Animal-Free Science Advocacy provides a clear framework for how this can work in practice:
- Students may raise objections to specific learning activities, not just entire courses.
- Requests should be considered respectfully and without discrimination.
- Alternatives must meet equivalent learning outcomes.
- Confidentiality should be maintained to protect students from undue pressure or stigma.
A well-implemented CO policy is more than a safeguard for animal welfare – it is a lifeline for students’ mental wellbeing and ethical integrity. It sends a clear message that upholding one’s values is not a liability, but a mark of professionalism.
By embedding such a framework into the learning environment, universities not only protect conscience, but also spark innovation through the adoption of modern, humane alternatives such as simulations, 3D models, and supervised clinical observation.
Conclusion: Teaching for a more humane future
As Bentham so powerfully framed it, ‘The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?’ A university that honours this truth teaches not only how to think, but how to care – and understands that progress is hollow if it comes at the cost of silencing conscience.
At its core, conscientious objection is about agency – the right to act in harmony with one’s values. It is also about respect: for individual conscience, for the lives of non-human beings, and for the integrity of our shared planet – the very foundation on which true knowledge, not just education, must rest.
References
Bartram, D. J., & Baldwin, D. S. (2008). Veterinary surgeons and suicide: Influences, opportunities and research directions. Veterinary Record, 162(2), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.162.2.36
Brscic, M., Contiero, B., Schianchi, A., & Marogna, C. (2021). Challenging suicide, burnout, and depression among veterinary practitioners and students: text mining and topics modelling analysis of the scientific literature. BMC Veterinary Research, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-03000-x
Deacon, R. E., & Brough, P. (2017). Veterinary nurses’ psychological well-being: The impact of patient suffering and death. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJPY.12119
Hilton, K. R., Burke, K. J., & Signal, T. (2022). Mental health in the veterinary profession: an individual or organisational focus? Australian Veterinary Journal, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/AVJ.13215
Mastenbroek, N. J. J. M., Jaarsma, A. D. C., Demerouti, E., Muijtjens, A. M. M., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & Van Beukelen, P. (2014). Burnout and engagement, and its predictors in young veterinary professionals: The influence of gender. Veterinary Record, 174(6), 144. https://doi.org/10.1136/VR.101762
Montoya, A. I. A., Hazel, S., Matthew, S. M., & McArthur, M. L. (2019). Moral distress in veterinarians. In Veterinary Record (Vol. 185, Issue 20, p. 631). Vet Rec. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.105289
Guest Post by Dr Tani Khara
Dr Khara is the research director and a mental health coach at Sentient Professional Wellbeing.