Article Text
Abstract
Johnson and Degeling have recently enquired whether one health (OH) requires a comprehensive normative framework, concluding that such a framework, while not necessary, may be helpful. In this commentary, we provide a context for this debate, and describe how pragmatism has been predominant in the OH literature. We nevertheless argue that articulating a comprehensive normative theory to ground OH practice might clear existing vagueness and provide stronger guidance in relevant health dilemmas. A comprehensive theory will also be needed eventually to ground notions such as universal good. We, thus, call for the systematic articulation of a comprehensive, metaethical theory, concomitantly with already ongoing normative work.
- environmental ethics
- philosophical ethics
- public health ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors ZL has produced the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors have contributed equally to revisions.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Does One Health require a novel ethical framework?
- One Health: the small animal dimension
- One Health and the neglected zoonoses: turning rhetoric into reality
- Professional separation and the re-emergence of One Health
- Waves of attention: patterns and themes of international antimicrobial resistance reports, 1945–2020
- Understanding transmission pathways and integrated digital surveillance potential of antimicrobial resistance in Ethiopia in a One Health approach: a mixed-method study protocol
- Developing One Health
- Pirbright marks a century of research into infectious diseases
- ‘One health’ high on the agenda at the FVE general assembly
- Compelling arguments