Culling and the Common Good: Re-evaluating Harms and Benefits under the One Health Paradigm

Degeling, Chris; Lederman, Zohar; Rock, Melanie

doi:10.1093/phe/phw019

Cited by 41 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the eradication of pathogens can and does frequently entail the eradication of the actual host or even the possible host. Though there is frequent criticism of practices of (prophylactic) mass culling in public debates and in the academic ethical discourse (Cohen and Stassen 2016;Mepham 2016;Degeling et al 2016), this is often countered by pointing out the allegedly unavoidable need of these practices against the backdrop of scientific (and thus supposedly incontestable) evidence (Latour 1999;Hinchliffe 2016: 30). Within such an objectivist understanding of disease (and health), illness or animal welfare and even animal lives come into play as a secondary moral issue only.…”

Section: Three Frames Of Health In Veterinary Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinarians between the Frontlines?! The Concept of One Health and Three Frames of Health in Veterinary Medicine

Huth¹,

Weich²,

Grimm³

2019

Food ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The BOne Health^initiative promises to combine different health-related issues concerning humans and animals in an overarching concept and in related practices to the benefit of both humans and animals. Far from dismissing One Health, this paper nevertheless argues that different veterinary interventions are determined by social practices and connected expectations and are, thus, hardly compliant with only one single conceptualization of health, as the One Health concept suggests. One Health relies on a naturalistic understanding of health focusing on similar bodies that show a similar etiology. However, logics, normativity, and practices exhibit differences when it comes to combatting infectious diseases, maintaining productivity of livestock animals or preventing companion animals from suffering. Therefore, drawing from Charles Rosenberg's groundbreaking texts on framing disease, we suggest to conceive of health as dispersed in different frames. Thus, this paper proposes to interpret health as complex and multi-layered concept. We distinguish and introduce an objectivist, a functional, and a sentientistic frame of health. Instead of reducing the differential veterinary practices to one paradigmatic understanding, health is seen as a model case of Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance. Different and distinct perspectives on veterinary medicine show sufficient overlapping that allows for a common conceptualization, but there is not one single underlying logic suitable to understand and ethically reflect all veterinary interventions. This differentiability promises to reduce moral stress in veterinary professionals since it allows the interpretation of various, seemingly contradicting practices as dependent on multi-layered and socially determined scopes of responsibility.

show abstract

Section: Three Frames Of Health In Veterinary Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinarians between the Frontlines?! The Concept of One Health and Three Frames of Health in Veterinary Medicine

Huth¹,

Weich²,

Grimm³

2019

Food ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maintenance and improvement of animal health and ecosystem functioning are also primary goals of One Health, with their own inherent value independent from their impact on human health (Barrett & Osofsky, ). Degeling et al () therefore suggest to regard health as a universal good: a necessary condition for a flourishing life which is shared between species, ecosystems and future generations. Contrary to public goods—which only apply to humans—this means that animals and the environment are considered recipients as well.…”

Section: Moral Dilemmas Of One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, certain One Health strategies lead to the culling of healthy animals. If One Health implies that besides the health of humans, the health of animals and the environment should be promoted as well, this requires justification (Degeling, Lederman, & Rock, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health as a moral dilemma: Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control

Herten

Bovenkerk

Verweij

2018

Zoonoses and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decade, the concept of One Health has become the international standard for zoonotic disease control. This call for transdisciplinary collaboration between professionals in human, animal and environmental health has produced several successes in zoonotic disease control, surveillance and research. Despite the lack of a clear definition, a shared agenda or institutional governance, One Health has proven to be a fruitful idea. Due to its ambiguity, the One Health concept functions as a boundary object: by leaving room for interpretation to fit different purposes, it facilitates cooperation. In many cases, this results in the promotion of health of humans, animals and the environment. However, there are also situations in which this mutual benefit of a One Health approach is not that evident, for instance, when healthy animals are culled to protect public health. Although such a strategy could well be part of a One Health approach, it is hard to understand how this contributes to the health of concerning animals. Consequently, these practices often lead to public debate. This raises questions on how we should understand the One Health concept in zoonotic disease control. Is it really about equally improving the health of humans, animals and the environment and is this even possible? Or is it ultimately just public health that counts? In cases of conflict between different values, the lack of a universal definition of the One Health concept contributes to this complexity. Although boundary objects have many positive aspects, in the context of One Health and zoonotic disease control, this conception seems to conceal underlying normative differences. To address moral dilemmas related to a One Health approach in zoonotic disease control, it is important to reflect on moral status and the meaning of health for humans, animals and the environment.

show abstract

“…One Health suggests that we should address health issues that affect humans, animals and the environment in a coherent way, but not how and why (Meijboom and Nieuwland 2018). The concerns about the lack of a normative framework for One Health have been addressed elsewhere in literature (Stephen and Karesh 2014;Degeling et al 2016;van Herten et al 2019). Important topics in this debate are the understanding of the concept of health and the view on the moral status of humans versus animals and the environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Important topics in this debate are the understanding of the concept of health and the view on the moral status of humans versus animals and the environment. A central question is whether or not health can be considered a universal good, shared by humans, animals and the environment (Degeling et al 2016). If not, then perhaps One Health means nothing more than promoting public health.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary Responsibilities within the One Health Framework

Herten

Meijboom

2019

Food ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Veterinarians play an essential role in the animal-based food chain. They are professionally responsible for the health of farm animals to secure food safety and public health. In the last decades, food scandals and zoonotic disease outbreaks have shown how much animal and human health are entangled. Therefore, the concept of One Health is broadly promoted within veterinary medicine. The profession embraces this idea that the health of humans, animals and the environment is inextricably linked and supports the related call for transdisciplinary collaboration. Especially in zoonotic disease control, the benefits of the cooperation between veterinarians and human doctors seem evident. However, applying a One Health approach also makes moral problems explicit. For instance, how should veterinarians deal with situations in which measures to protect public health negatively affect animal health? This creates a conflict of professional responsibilities. To deal with such moral problems and to strengthen the veterinarian's position, the starting point is a holistic perspective on One Health. We will argue for an 'encapsulated health' argument: the best way to safeguard human health is to promote the health of animals and the environment. This also holds for the responsibility of the veterinary profession: to serve public health, the central responsibility of veterinarians should be to be experts in animal health and welfare. We elaborate this point by using a case study on the role of the veterinary profession in antimicrobial resistance policies in the Netherlands.

show abstract

Culling and the Common Good: Re-evaluating Harms and Benefits under the One Health Paradigm

Cited by 41 publications

References 41 publications

Veterinarians between the Frontlines?! The Concept of One Health and Three Frames of Health in Veterinary Medicine

Veterinarians between the Frontlines?! The Concept of One Health and Three Frames of Health in Veterinary Medicine

One Health as a moral dilemma: Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control

Veterinary Responsibilities within the One Health Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About