Does One Health require a novel ethical framework?

Abstract

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) remain a significant and dynamic threat to the health of individuals and the well-being of communities across the globe. Over the last decade, in response to these threats, increasing scientific consensus has mobilised in support of a One Health (OH) approach so that OH is now widely regarded as the most effective way of addressing EID outbreaks and risks. Given the scientific focus on OH, there is growing interest in the philosophical and ethical dimensions of this approach, and a nascent OH literature is developing in the humanities. One of the key issues raised in this literature concerns ethical frameworks and whether OH merits the development of its very own ethical framework. In this paper, we argue that although the OH approach does not demand a new ethical framework (and that advocates of OH can coherently adhere to this approach while deploying existing ethical frameworks), an OH approach does furnish the theoretical resources to support a novel ethical framework, and there are benefits to developing one that may be lost in its absence. We begin by briefly explaining what an OH approach to the threats posed by EIDs entails before outlining two different ways of construing ethical frameworks. We then show that although on one account of ethical frameworks there is no need for OH to generate its own, there may be advantages for its advocates in doing so.

The Berlin principles on one health – Bridging global health and conservation

“…Underpinning the Berlin Principles is a broad One Health ethical framework that aims to foster the health of humans, animals and their shared environments and to endorse collaboration that breaks down disciplinary and policy silos to this end ( Johnson and Degeling, 2019 ; Rock and Degeling, 2015 ; Degeling et al, 2016 ; Verweij and Bovenkerk, 2016 ). The current entwined emergencies of public health, biodiversity loss and climate change clearly illustrate the impossibility of protecting human health in isolation from the health of other animals and the environment.…”

“…Communities exposed to disproportionate environmental pollution have suffered significant health impacts from Covid-19; biodiversity loss poses very serious risks to subsistence farmers, the rural poor and to members of traditional societies; while climate change is damaging economically disadvantaged communities who have contributed very little to bringing it about ( Díaz et al, 2006 ). And climate change, biodiversity loss and the global pandemic also raise questions about the justice of many current human relationships with other animals ( Johnson and Degeling, 2019 ; Verweij and Bovenkerk, 2016 ). The joined-up ethics of One Health provides an opportunity to promote justice and solidarity where humans, other animals, and the environment meet.…”

One health ethics: a response to pragmatism

“…Johnson and Degeling speculate that OH does not require a theoretical normative framework but particular ethical principles may sufficiently ground the aims of OH, for example, solidarity 3 4. While we find this pragmatic approach overall helpful, here we make a stronger case for such a comprehensive framework.…”

“…More ambitiously, Capps and Lederman coined the term ‘universal good’ in the context of OH,21 and their definition was later adopted by Degeling et al 15. Johnson and Degeling also referred to a vague ‘good’, but derived it from a case to reformulate the concept of ‘health’ by addressing a conflict between a people’s ‘way of life’ that is threatened by ‘the good’ of another species 3. Capps and Lederman, however, argued that, similarly to the commonly used term ‘common good’ in public health that considers the balance between the public interests and individual rights, universal good includes in this balance benefits and burdens inclusive across species, ecosystems, the environment and future generations.…”

Guest Editorial

“…Arguably ethicists are also lagging behind, but for the right reasons. To date OH remains focused primarily on human health, prompting skepticism among ethicists as to the novelty of the whole OH project (Verweij and Bovenkerk 2016;Johnson and Degeling 2019): What does OH add if it is just another holistic approach to human health? More concerning are the potential ethical implications of OH: If it is indeed a novel approach to promoting interspecies health, does it require a novel ethical discussion and a re-alignment and re-consideration of ethical principles and environmental philosophy?…”