Combating Resistance: The Case for a Global Antibiotics Treaty

Anomaly, Jonathan

doi:10.1093/phe/phq001

Cited by 36 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When we consider the farmed animal industry, the argument has been made that the negative GHIs associated with the large-scale use of antibiotics in the production of particular farmed animal products are so significant that they justify a ban on the use of prophylactic antibiotics (Anomaly 2010). However, as other aspects of the animal industry do not fare much better as far as their negative GHIs are concerned, it would seem to be appropriate to ban the consumption of animal products for all human beings who would fail to minimise negative GHIs by consuming such products.…”

Section: The Vegan Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Deckers

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Vegan Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Deckers

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…36 Would a global antibiotics treaty be an ethical solution to the problem? 37 Must the ethics of antibiotic use be incorporated into broader discussions of justice issues in social determinants of health? 38 To what extent are the ethical challenges of antibiotic policies/practices in the developed world and the developing world separable?…”

Section: Health Risks and Moving Past Skepticism: Learning From The Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioethics and the Framing of Climate Change's Health Risks

Valles¹

2014

Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cheryl Cox Macpherson recently argued, in an article for this journal, that 'Climate Change is a Bioethics Problem'. This article elaborates on that position, particularly highlighting bioethicists' potential ability to help reframe the current climate change discourse to give more attention to its health risks. This reframing process is especially important because of the looming problem of climate change skepticism. Recent empirical evidence from science framing experiments indicates that the public reacts especially positively to climate change messages framed in public health terms, and bioethicists are particularly well positioned to contribute their expertise to the process of carefully developing and communicating such messages. Additionally, as climate framing research and practice continue, it will be important for bioethicists to contribute to the creation of that project's nascent ethical standards. The discourse surrounding antibiotic resistance is posited as an example that can lend insight into how communicating a public health-framed message, including the participation of bioethicists, can help to override public skepticism about the findings of politically contentious scientific fields.

show abstract

“…For example, in the absence of pollution regulations, each person's choice to consume products that emit greenhouse gasses, or take antibiotics whenever they have a headache, will lead to the inefficient use of energy and anti-microbial drugs, and will result in predictable harm to others in the form of air pollution and genetic pollution (Anomaly, 2010). …”

Section: Population Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health and Public Goods

Anomaly

2011

Public Health Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish public health (and public health ethics) from tangentially related fields like social work. I argue that we should reclaim the more traditional conception of public health as the provision of health-related public goods. The public goods account has the advantage of establishing a relatively clear and distinctive mission for public health. It also allows a consensus of people with different comprehensive moral and political commitments to endorse public health measures, even if they disagree about precisely why they are desirable.The field of public health is having an identity crisis. From its inception, public health has been concerned with promoting the health of populations rather than individuals, which explains its special emphasis on communicable disease. But many have begun to see public health as a branch of social work rather than medicine. On this view, public health seeks to promote human rights and social justice in addition to preventing pandemics and pollution. 1 I will argue that we need a clearer conception of public health-one that more closely captures its original mission-in order to distinguish both the theory and practice of public health from related fields. Defending a particular conception of public health will inevitably involve contentious normative judgments since any account of what public health is ultimately requires judgments about how we ought to conceive of it.The account of public health I advocate is conservative in the sense that it aims to reclaim its historical mission. But it is also revisionary to the extent that it seeks to simplify the way we think about public health. The account developed here does not claim to reveal any transcendent essence; rather, it is an attempt to set the agenda so that the goals of public health are clear, and people with different comprehensive moral and political commitments will agree with its goals, even if they disagree about how best to achieve them, or why they're worth achieving.

show abstract

Combating Resistance: The Case for a Global Antibiotics Treaty

Cited by 36 publications

References 17 publications

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Bioethics and the Framing of Climate Change's Health Risks

Public Health and Public Goods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About