Article Text

Download PDFPDF
More philosophical work needed in One Health on ethical frameworks and theory
  1. Jane Johnson1,2,
  2. Chris Degeling3
  1. 1 Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Disease and Biosecurity, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. 2 Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia
  3. 3 Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jane Johnson, Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, North Ryde NSW 2109, NSW, Australia; jane.johnson{at}


We thank Zohar Lederman and Benjamin Capps for engaging with our paper on One Health (OH) and ethical frameworks, however we want to take issue with them on three points. First, they appear to misunderstand the distinction we appeal to between ethical theory and ethical frameworks, and so misinterpret what we are trying to achieve in our paper. Second, in spite of what they seem to imply, we agree that an OH approach can obscure differences in values, and that to progress the field there needs to be recognition of competing values and their implications for OH. Finally, we are puzzled by their interest in pursuing a deliberative process, as this seems at odds with other positions they take in their paper, and also opens up many questions that need to be addressed.

  • decision-making
  • public health ethics

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors JJ drafted the response. CD reviewed and made suggestions. JJ and CD agreed on the submitted version.

  • Funding Research for this paper was supported by funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Grant number APP1083079.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you