Persuasion in Veterinary Medicine: Indications, Ethical Boundaries, And Evidence-Based Tools

Veterinary medicine is a decisional profession practiced under biological uncertainty, time pressure, financial constraints, and strong human–animal bond dynamics. In this setting, the veterinarian’s persuasive skill is not an optional “soft” attribute; it is a clinical instrument that can determine whether evidence-based recommendations are translated into protective action, including analgesia, preventive care, biosecurity, antimicrobial stewardship, and humane end-of-life decisions. Yet persuasion in clinical contexts is ethically fraught, because the veterinarian typically holds epistemic authority and may also have institutional or commercial incentives. This article synthesizes peer-reviewed veterinary communication research and high-authority risk-communication guidance to specify when persuasion is professionally warranted, how it differs from manipulation, and which tools are best supported for achieving ethically defensible influence. We argue that persuasive practice is most justified when the animal’s welfare, population health, or public health is at stake and when the client faces motivational ambivalence or cognitive overload. The most robust tools combine structured consultation models, client-centered methods such as Motivational Interviewing, behavior-change specification frameworks, and crisis/risk communication protocols used by animal-health authorities. We conclude with practical standards for transparent, autonomy-respecting persuasion and a research agenda for measuring communication-mediated outcomes in veterinary care.