One Health, Ecological Bioethics, and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A call for Global Action

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3526828/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

One Health, Ecological Bioethics, and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A call for Global Action

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3526828/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Zoonoethics refers to the ethical issues surrounding zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans (WHO, 2023). With the rise of emerging infectious diseases globally, these issues have become increasingly important. There are over 200 known types of zoonoses, and many of them are influenced by socioeconomic factors like climate change, biodiversity loss, and antimicrobial resistance. Zoonoses and diseases of infectious origin account for 70% of new and existing diseases affecting both humans and animals. Examples of zoonoses include but are not limited to anthrax, brucellosis, influenza, hantavirus syndromes, plagues, rabies, SARS-CoV, swine flu, MERS-CoV, Ebola, and SARS-CoV-2. While diseases like rabies can be prevented with vaccinations, others like Ebola and SARS-CoV-2 are extremely deadly. The management of these diseases will require the adoption and acceleration of the “One Health” approach, which recognizes the interconnectedness and interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health.

One-Health

zoonotic diseases

global bioethics

animal slaughter

zoonoethics

Zoonotic pathogens can spread to humans through contact with domestic, farm or wild vertebrate animals (Horefti, 2023). However, invertebrates and other intermediate hosts can intervene in the complex network of emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases(Eidson, 2008; Konda et al., 2020a; Rüegg et al., 2018; Uretsky et al., 2020; WHO, 2022). Some zoonotic diseases of animal origin are severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola and, recently, SARS-CoV-2. As shown by Jones et al. (2008, p. 990), most EIDs are zoonoses (60.3% of EIDs), and more than 70% originate from wild animal trafficking (Bezerra-Santos et al., 2021; Cardoso et al., 2021; Nijman, 2021; Ortiz Millán, 2020; Ortiz-Millán, 2022; Roe et al., 2020), increasingly close contact with farm and wild animals, intensive agriculture, unsustainable global food systems, and crimes against biodiversity (Boratto & Gibbs, 2017; Gladkova, 2023; Sollund, 2021; Wong, 2023). The objective of this article is twofold. On the one hand, I want to join the recent call to action to accelerate the operationalization and implementation of the OH approach, made by the Quadripartite organizations working on One Health(FAO; UNEP; WHO; WOAH, 2022). On the other hand, it can be argued that the tools and methods of multispecies justice (MSJ) and zoonoethics can aid in resolving conflicts between competing moral claims that arise in favor of both human and non-human life. This approach can assist in addressing the challenges faced by the OH framework.

The first call can be stated in a negative way: (1) We cannot expect zoonotic diseases to decrease unless we urgently take prudent and precautionary measures to halt the systematic destruction of wildlife and put a stop to the ongoing ecocide of the planet. (Baquedano, 2019; Gibbs & Boratto, 2017; Gray, 1996; Schwegler, 2017; White, 2019) As various scholars have corroborated, there is a very close relationship between defaunation, environmental crimes, ethnocide and the mechanisms of emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases. (Crook et al., 2018; Rodríguez Goyes, 2021; Uhm & Zaitch, 2021). The second call to reduce the risks of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and zoonoses in the Anthropocene Age is the following (2): We need to enhance interepistemic and transdisciplinary communication to develop a comprehensive and nonanthropocentric perspective on EIDs and zoonoses. (Filho et al., 2021; M. Guilherme, 2021; Guilherme, 2023; R’boul, 2022; Salas, 2021; Salas & Sandoval, 2020)

Zoonoses should not be understood as single-cause events reduced to the world of veterinary medicine but as systemic ecosocial phenomena of increasing complexity that are produced by the confluence of environmental, sociocultural and economic factors linked to the dynamics of anthropogenic climate change, the flows of global capitalism, the intensification of agriculture, the concentration of waste and garbage from animal farms, the pollution of the seas, and the increase in global trade and travel, among other factors (Bastidas et al., 2022; Bernstein & Dutkiewicz, 2021; Bloom et al., 2017; Douphrate, 2021; Hubálek & Rudolf, 2010; Keatts et al., 2021; Rodríguez, 2021; Stephens et al., 2021; Valera & Rodriguez, 2021). Figure 1 illustrates the network of factors associated with the emergence and spread of zoonoses.

Zoonotic diseases can emerge and spread rapidly among the population, surpassing the capacities of the institutions in charge of epidemiological surveillance due to the flows of global capitalism, accelerated population growth, intensification of travel and international trade, among other factors. (Antoine-Moussiaux et al., 2019; Field, 2009; Layton et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2020; Rüegg et al., 2018; Schrecker, 2020; Sell, Susan & Williams, 2020; Shaheen, 2022; Weitzel et al., 2020; Zinsstag et al., 2021) Other anthropogenic drivers that increase the risks of zoonoses are pollution of the seas, overfishing, excessive use of antibiotics in the global food production chain and the advance of “green” extractivism. (Allouche, 2015; Andrade, 2022; Bruna, 2022; Chagnon et al., 2022; Nygren et al., 2022).

Every year millions of animals are intensively farmed on industrial animal farms that use excessive doses of antimicrobials in different phases of livestock production. In fact, the call to “Curb the silent pandemic of AMR” is one of the main red traffic lights that we find in the “One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026”. (FAO; UNEP; WHO; WOAH, 2022) The ethical and prudential use of problematic bactericidal and antimicrobial preparations has ceased to be a question for experts and is becoming one of the great ethical imperatives for the construction of viable and sustainable health systems. (Littmann, 2014; B. Rollin, 2001; WHO, 2015) The widespread and prolonged use of antimicrobials in the different stages of intensive animal agriculture represents one of the main drivers for the development of resistant bacterial populations. The ethical use of antimicrobials has strong implications for both human ethics and animal ethics, although this difference is becoming increasingly blurred, and it is noted that the prudent management of zoonoses requires transdisciplinary approaches and interdisciplinary discussions (Anthony & De Paula Vieira, 2022; Collignon, Peter & McEwen, 2019; Jasovský et al., 2016; Lammie & Hughes, 2016; McEwen, Scott & Collignon, 2018; Millanao et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019).

Another factor that increases the risk of zoonotic diseases is the unsustainable transport of livestock and poultry, since these animals are often transported in unsanitary conditions over long distances, which deepens both animal abuse and the risks of spreading zoonotic diseases. (Belay et al., 2017; Marchese & Hovorka, 2022; Sánchez et al., 2021) In other words, the crisis of the global food system, which has caused a decrease in the intake of healthy foods with high nutritional value, overlaps with other crises, such as the loss of biodiversity, the water crisis, the energy crisis, deficiencies in water treatment plants, unhealthiness problems and the transportation crisis (Broom, 2019; Steenson & Buttriss, 2020; Stoll-Kleemann & O’Riordan, 2015)

In the current conditions of a highly interdependent and globalized world in which we live, zoonoses must be understood as transboundary events that unequally affect different communities and groups. As the WHO indicates, “Agricultural workers in areas with high use of antibiotics for farm animals may be at increased risk of contracting pathogens resistant to current antimicrobial drugs.”(WHO, 2020) Currently, the increase in human settlements in wild areas, megafires, rising temperatures, droughts and the destruction of large ecosystems such as the forests of southern Chile and the Amazon, which play key roles in global carbon capture, are triggering the risks of spreading zoonotic diseases(Bonilla-Aldana et al., 2020; Perez-Quezada et al., 2021, 2023; Winck et al., 2022)

Table 1 shows a timeline that demonstrates the increase in EIDs from 1918 to the present. One of the most recent cases of re-emerging zoonotic diseases is monkeypox, which was first detected in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A global outbreak of monkeypox occurred in 2022-2023, particularly affecting the Americas, Europe and Africa. To date, the natural reservoir of the virus is unknown, but there are several vulnerable small mammals, such as squirrels and monkeys (WHO, 2023)

In this section, we introduce some ethical principles and potentialities that zoonoethics interested in the prevention of emerging zoonotic diseases in the Anthropocene era must consider to inform public policy and guide the decisions of communities, citizens, decision makers and other stakeholders. On the one hand, zoonoethics, understood as a field of research in applied ethics and veterinary medicine, can promote rational, evidence-based discussions to exercise prudent judgment and public deliberation based on constructive conflict to resolve normative disputes about “conflicting value claims” linked to the health of humans, animals and environments. On the other hand, zoonoethics must be rooted in the precautionary principle (Jonas, 1984; O’Riordan, T. & Cameron, 1995; Read & O’riordan, 2017; Van Herten & Bovenkerk, 2021) and provide normative and descriptive knowledge to inform decision makers and interested parties in the construction of public policies aimed at preventing EIDs.

From the two previous assertions, it is possible to sustain a third statement: Zoonoethics can serve as a “bridge” to unite diverse epistemic fields and establish transdisciplinary and interparadigmatic debates between scientific, religious, cultural and ecosocial pluriverses(Fornet-Betancourt, 2009; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, Author, 2021). At the epistemic level, zoonoethics could help weave networks of understanding between knowledge from veterinary medicine, biomedical sciences, animal agriculture, epidemiology, antimicrobial resistance, global bioethics and environmental humanities, among other fields. (Coghlan & Coghlan, 2018; Lee, 2017; Rüegg et al., 2018; Wallach et al., 2020; Zinsstag et al., 2021, 2022, 2018)

One of the first issues that zoonoethics must address is the fair, careful and ethical treatment of domestic, farm and wild animals. In our techno-scientific society, it is generally assumed that the slaughter and killing of farm animals is justified in regard to ensuring food security for a voracious and exponentially growing human population(Rawlinson et al., 2017; Sandler, 2015; Thompson, 2016) However, as various scholars

However, as scholars from a variety of fields interested in animal welfare (Singer, 1987, 2015; Ventura et al., 2015, 2016; Weary & von Keyserlingk, 2023), animal rights (Bostock, 1993; Francione, 2004; Milburn, 2017; Regan, 1980; Rowlands, 1997; Sunstein & Nussbaum, 2012) animal justice (Celermajer et al., 2023; Garner, 2013; Nussbaum, 2022; Nussbaum, 2008; Schlosberg, 2014), and interspecies ethics (Willett, 2014), and animal studies (Gruen, 2015, 2018a, 2018b) have emphasized this speciesist and anthropocentric argument has large gaps and leaves the question of the appropriate ethical treatment of animals unanswered.

However, in this work, I will try to approach the question of the appropriate treatment of animals from an alternative approach, that of ecological bioethics. (Lecaros, 2013; Muzur, A. & Rinčić, 2015; Ortiz-Millán, 2022; ten Have H and Gordijn B., 2014) Now, it is necessary to clarify that my vision of bioethics is opposite to the vision of Fiore, who maintains that the term environmental bioethics “seems qualified, derivative: a subgenre of biomedical ethics or environmental ethics rather than the ground for both.” (2016, p. 316) My vision of ecologic bioethics, inspired by the Potter’s works (1970, 1971, 1987, 1996), is nearer to that of authors such as Gardiner (2022a); Lee (2017); Macklin (2012, 2022); y Valera (2019, 2020). By rediscovering the normative significance and global appeal of bioethics and its interest in nonhuman ethics, global public health, and climate justice, we can build bridges and pathways between multispecies justice, ecological bioethics, and zoonotic ethics. (Diller & Williamson, 2023)

Currently, there is renewed interest in rethinking and expanding the global agenda of bioethics, as it was conceived at the time by Van Rensselaer Potter. (Macppherson, 2022; Ortiz-Millán, 2022; ten Have, 2022; Tong, 2022) In recent works (2021a, 2021b), I have shown that the One Health and Planetary Health approaches would gain much more traction and be easier to operationalize and put into practice if we reinvigorated the globality of bioethics in light of recent discoveries about the complex mechanisms of emergence, transmission and massive propagation of EIDs and zoonoses revealed during the pandemic (Bonilla-Aldana et al., 2020; Cediel Becerra et al., 2021; Cediel-Becerra et al., 2022; Hemida & Ba Abduallah, 2020; Ishii, 2021; Konda et al., 2020b; Leroy et al., 2020; Turcios-Casco & Cazzolla Gatti, 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). If we recover the globality and multidimensionality of bioethics, we can imagine a bridging, comprehensive, and intersectional bioethics that serves to deepen dialog, transdisciplinary communication and cooperation between countries and regions for an early and prudent response to future outbreaks of EIDs and zoonoses (Author, 2021c). As Gardiner (2022a, p. 571) emphasizes, “conventional bioethics has largely failed to engage, and so is left mainly to contribute to damage limitation, emergency management, and redress.” A way to overcome this limitation and avoid falling into the vices of a superficial and overly technical bioethics that only limits itself to acting when it is too late, but is incapable of providing normative, descriptive knowledge and practical wisdom to guide decision-making and anticipate risks, is to move toward what some authors have called “One Bioethics” (Thompson & List, 2015; Thompson, 2015, 2020; Capps, 2022). Ecological bioethics and One Bioethics could offer valuable normative and epistemic resources to prudently address the risks derived from the emergence and spread of EIDs and zoonoses in the Anthropocene Age.

In what follows, I briefly discuss the dilemma of mink culling in the pandemic scenario from the perspective of One Health. In 2020, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, made the decision to sacrifice approximately 15 million minks due to a COVID-19 mutation identified on farms in the Nordic country. Denmark is the world's leading producer of mink fur. The main argument in support of this decision was that the mutation detected among minks could infect humans and put the effectiveness of a new vaccine at risk. As illustrated in this case, certain anthropocentric measures to control zoonoses could give rise to ethical dilemmas related to the improper treatment of animals when human health is at risk. In order to resolve ethical dilemmas between competing value claims, we need to deepen the debate on multispecies justice (Celermajer et al., 2020; Healey & Pepper, 2021; Thaler, 2022b, 2022a). In addition, we need to clarify what we say when we want to include the value claims of animals, ecosystems, and ecological collectives within One Health (Attfield, 2015; Callicott et al., 2007; Rolston, 2010; Rozzi et al., 2013, 2020; Rozzi, 2015). To advance the revitalization and acceleration of One Health, we need to develop a long-term vision of One Health policy that can positively value “entangled empathy” and relational vulnerability between different species (Gruen, 2015, 2018b, 2018a).

In the case of zoonotic diseases, the moral meaning that people attribute to animals is context dependent; the statements and emotions pro- and against animal culling change meaningfully depending on the uncertainty and risks involved: the decisions made in a “normal scenario” are not the ones the same as those made under catastrophe scenarios. As Van Herten et al. state, “In cases where human health is at risk, most people justify the culling of healthy animals. In situations where there is no danger that humans become infected, culling is less accepted” (van Herten et al., 2019, p. 30). The effectiveness and impact of measures to address emerging and re-emerging zoonotic disease risks depend on the belief systems, values, and assumptions of individuals and communities (Ryan & Weary, 2023). Many times, unproven beliefs concerning wildlife and anthropo-centric value schemes can become strong agencies that hinder the adoption of holistic health measures from a comprehensive One Health perspective. (Antoine-Moussiaux et al., 2019; Lerner & Berg, 2017; Roger et al., 2016; Rüegg et al., 2018; Zinsstag et al., 2021)

Since 2008, The American Veterinary Medical Association established the concept of One Health, envisioning the possibility of fighting for the maintenance of certain levels of “optimal health” and establishing win‒win solutions for all parties involved: human life, nonhuman life and environments. “One Health is the collaborative effort of multiple disciplines—working locally, nationally, and globally—to attain optimal health for people, animals and our environment.” (AVMA, 2008, p. 13) Only the implementation of a comprehensive and nonanthropocentric One Health vision can fulfill the promise of discovering fair and equitable solutions considering the vital interests of all parties involved, including both humans and nonhuman entities (Beever & Morar, 2017, 2018). This requires revaluing the normative and descriptive content of health as a common good, capable of establishing networks of care, solidarity and kinship across species and environments, and respecting the value claims of diverse actors linked to a common network of interests.

As demonstrated recently by Nussbaum (2022; 2008) and Pelluchon (2016, 2018), the unjustified suffering and harm caused to animals – although long forgotten thanks to rigid value and belief systems that normalize animal slaughter and sacrifice – is illogical and immoral. In the case of mink, the decision in favor of animal sacrifice could be justified under the “harm principle”, initially introduced by Mill (Turner, 2014), which authorizes, under exceptional circumstances in which certain human assets are at serious risk, the 'legitimate' use of violence. The crucial point here is to precisely determine what is truly at stake when a government attempts to take exceptional measures to protect economies and public health. (Arato et al., 2020; Kirk & McDonald, 2021) This decision, based on political exceptionalism, created a domino effect and spread to other countries such as Holland, Sweden, Greece and Spain. (Frutos & Devaux, 2020; Lesté-Lasserre, 2020) This case illustrates the need for zoonoethics articulated to a comprehensive, multidimensional and nonanthropocentric vision of One-Health (Rüegg et al., 2018; Zinsstag et al., 2005, 2021, 2022; Zinsstag, 2012). In the case of the minks slaughtered in Europe, we must face two relevant ethical questions: first, is this an attitude of caution or an overreaction driven by panic? And, second: Who loses and who wins after the sacrifice of animals that are conceived as an “extra factor” in the global fur industry, with an annual value of more than 22 billion dollars a year? (Cripps, 2013; Degeling et al., 2016; Halteman, 2011).

Finally, it is necessary to articulate a cautious perspective of the precautionary principle to zoonoethics to prevent control methods for managing zoonoses from bringing unforeseen consequences and unwanted harm to humans, animals and environments. (Martuzzi & Tickner, 2004; Origgi, 2014; Van Herten & Bovenkerk, 2021). As warned by Resnik: “Some of the methods used to prevent mosquito-borne diseases, such as draining swamps and spraying pesticides (especially DDT), can have adverse environmental impacts, such as the destruction of habitats and species” (2009, p. 2). Other cases that can illustrate the ethical dilemmas within One Health are the sacrifice of healthy surplus farm animals. (Palmer et al., 2022) and euthanasia or the “good death” of animals at zoos. (Browning, 2018; McCulloch & Reiss, 2017, 2018; B. E. Rollin, 2017) These cases, as seen by several scholars, are complex and go beyond the traditional tension between the positions of “welfarists” and “animal rights advocates”.

In this section, I want to take up the WHO's calls to reinvigorate and accelerate the implementation of the One Health approach. First, the best way forward in implementing a planetary health approach is to act preventively under the kaleidoscope of caution, eco-wisdom and responsibility from a comprehensive One Health for all, including value claims and the interests of humans, animals and environments. (Origgi, 2014; Rechnitzer, 2022; Sandin, 1999; Van Herten & Bovenkerk, 2021) As noted early by Potter (Muzur e tal., 2016; Potter, 1973, 1992, 1996; 2001; Valera, 2017; Rodríguez, 2021), human and animal healthcare practices generate a large amount of waste and pollution that can harm the environment and have long-term and systemic effects on planetary health. The ecological footprint due to plastics, syringes, solid and liquid waste, etc., and the energy expenditure of hospitals is a problem of growing concern for the management of zoonotic diseases and EIDs. (Alam et al., 2019; Behnam et al., 2020; Dias et al., 2021; Savin et al., 2020) Pest control, “invasive species,” logging, and the unsustainable global food industry based on animal slaughter illustrate a long-ignored truth: many times our choices are based on a cost/benefit analysis rather than a deep and serious ethical reflection on what should be the correct treatment and win‒win action to confront zoonotic diseases and climate change with wisdom, prudence and responsibility from a comprehensive and long-term vision. (Beever & Morar, 2017, 2018; Herten et al., 2020; Lerner & Berg, 2015, 2017; Van Herten, 2021; van Herten et al., 2019)

Second, today, we have solid evidence about the incredible complexity of the mechanisms of spread of EIDs and zoonoses that originate largely from the same drivers of global climate change. From the One-Health approach, it has become commonplace to say that addressing zoonoses and EIDs requires greater communication, collaboration and interdisciplinary work between zoologists, virologists, veterinarians, foresters and environmental humanities scholars. However, in practice, collaboration and interepistemic collaboration between experts in the medical and biological sciences, on the one hand, and bioethicists, environmentalists, researchers in animal studies and scholars of the environmental humanities, on the other, remain quite low. (Barrett & Osofsky, 2013; Guilherme, 2021; Leboeuf, 2011; Mackenzie et al., 2013; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Nieuwland & Meijboom, 2020; Waltner-Toews, 2017; Wilkes et al., 2019) Another problem is that very few public policy experts understand the high complexity of the issues involved in zoonoses and the challenges of One-Health from a complex and multispecies justice approach. As noted by Waltner-Toews, (2017, p. 7): “However, few animal science researchers, standing in their hazard suits and masks in a conventional chicken broiler barn, have made the mental connections between poultry rearing and ducks flying overhead, or between agribusiness and viruses and bacteria for which the ducks are a quiet, accessible vehicle for long-distance air travel”.

At a meeting in March 2023, the WHO made an emphatic call to accelerate the implementation of the One-Health approach to respond in a coordinated and multisectoral manner to'recent international health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, mpox, Ebola outbreaks and ongoing threats from other zoonotic diseases, food safety, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) challenges', among others. This brings me to my third and final call. Perhaps one of the problems that best illustrates the importance of zoonoethics is the problem of AMR. Until approximately fifty years ago, the problem of AMR was basically understood as a problem of interest to microbiologists, virologists and a small group of economists interested in the development of antibiotics and new drugs. However, as a result of the effort and transdisciplinary collaboration in the last two decades and the hard learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was understood that the indiscriminate use of antimicrobials is one of the main drivers of the development of pathogens resistant to antimicrobials. medicines. In other words, the problem of AMR became one of the ten ethical and political challenges facing humanity. This problem, once again, is not disconnected from other crises but is closely connected to the problems of food insecurity, poverty, unhealthiness, lack of sources of clean water and basic sanitation, deep gaps in care primary, serious shortcomings in sewage systems and water treatment plants, failures in the management and disposal of intrahospital solid and liquid waste and structural failures in public health policies aimed at infection control. The WHO has corroborated that all of these factors promote the spread of microbes, some of which may be resistant to antimicrobial treatment. This explains why the concept of antimicrobial stewardship has gained so much importance in recent years (Cox et al., 2017; Doron & Davidson, 2011; Dyar et al., 2017). Reducing the AMR issue to a hospital issue would be irrational and could perpetuate injustices. The widespread use of bactericides in the care of humans, animals and agriculture means that we are in the middle of a malignant circle of bioaccumulation of bacteria and microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. As pointed out by Osińska et al. (2020, p. 2):

However, the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) is not restricted to hospital environment. There are numerous investigations into the resistance to antibiotics among environmental strains, suggesting that clinical strains of bacteria with greater resistance often originate from the natural environment, including soil and water habitats (Almakki et al., 2019; Sengupta et al., 2013). These environmental bacteria resistant to antibiotics can carry ARGs onto microorganisms which are pathogenic to man. Hence, identification of sources of drug-resistance genes, their distribution in the environment and an analysis of anthropogenic factors involved are necessary for the development of a strategy for combating antibiotic resistance.

Finally, I want to conclude by evoking two powerful and enduring ideas that we find in three texts that, although they belong to different traditions, have a common root: Pope Francis’ Laudato Sí Encyclical (Francisco, 2015), Arne Næss’ Ecology, community, and lifestyle (1990), and Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethics (1949). Pope Francis emphasized that although all human beings have a universal Dignity − which prevents us from being treated as mere “things” or “commodities” that can be produced, consumed and then become “disposable” − we are not the pinnacle of creation, nor do we have the right to abuse other species and destroy wildlife for our own benefit or to satisfy our selfish needs. He points out, “Just as the different components of the planet – physical, chemical and biological – are related to each other, living species also make up a network that we never fully recognize and understand” (2015, p. 107). In other words, Pope Francis recognizes that humans are not isolated from nature and the environments we inhabit but rather “we are included in it, we are part of it and we are interpenetrated” (Ibid., p. 108). In the 1980s, Næss (Diehm, 2020; Valera, 2018, 2019a), a precursor of ecosophy, made a similar call and maintained that human beings are relational beings and are not condemned to make decisions from a self-centered perspective and guided by selfish interests; however, we could cultivate and expand our self and develop a kinder and happier vision of ourselves to care for and empathize with other beings and environments. (1990, 2005b, 2005a). Leopold, he emphasized that we needed to ‘reduce human violence exerted on the biotic community in our struggle for survival’ (Callicott, 2018, 2015, 2023). And he added, “All ethics developed so far are based on a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts” (1949, p. 203). The careful study of the fine interdependence between all forms of life can lead us to better manage zoonotic diseases to try to act prudently to prevent the next pandemic. The One Health approach can be nourished by the rich visions of interdependence and interconnectedness conveyed by the intercultural wisdom of the indigenous peoples of the Global South. At the heart of One Health is the idea of linking the different areas of human, animal, and environmental health. In this sense, the idea of vincularity can be enlightening: “Vincularidad is the awareness of the integral relation and interdependence among all living organisms (in which humans are only a part) with territory or land and the cosmos. It is a relation and interdependence in search of balance and harmony of life in the planet.”(Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 1) As stated by Waltner-Toews (2017, p. 7)

It is a grievous mistake to imagine that pandemics can be understood and managed by studying the pieces separately (viruses, birds, pigs, people). To understand the challenges of learning to live with diverse microbial populations, we need to re-imagine the world in deeper, more complex, more evidence-based ecosystem terms. It is one thing to document in detail the cellular and biochemical structure of dead ducks in a marsh in Saskatchewan, as well as, more recently, the microbiomes they carry, or those of dead chickens in a barn in British Columbia. It is quite another thing to understand the relationships among multiple species at multiple scales.

To deal ethically and prudently with emerging infectious diseases, we need to improve the intercultural collaboration between veterinary medicine, cutting-edge Western knowledge and the ancestral knowledge of traditional systems of indigenous peoples. (Estomba et al., 2006; Molares & Ladio, 2009; Torri, 2010; Zinsstag et al., 2022). All of these efforts would lead us to a more modest vision of ourselves and would help us move toward policies of solidarity, care, and interspecies cooperation. (Chao et al., 2022; Coulter, 2016; Deane-Drummond, 2019; Gruen, 2015, 2018b; Ishii, 2021; Tschakert et al., 2021; Tschakert, 2022; Willett, 2014). Implementing the "One Health" approach necessitates integrating various disciplines' symbolic universes and techniques, while also instigating constructive conflict and establishing the groundwork for intercultural and interreligious discussion. This will allow us to craft fresh "interwoven narratives" that foster sustainable ways of inhabiting the future (C. Deane-Drummond, 2017; C. Deane-Drummond & Artinian-Kaiser, 2018; Celia. Deane-Drummond, 2019; Kirchhoffer, 2018). In order to tell and pass on stories of resilience and planetary health to future generations, it then becomes imperative to recognize the ignored interests and perspectives of value, the differences in political and economic power and how gender impacts policies to confront AMR, climate change and zoonoses. All this has a lot to do with multispecies justice. As stated by Waltner-Toews, (2017, p. 7): “the real costs of producing low-cost chicken are being paid in economic subsidies to fossil fuels and corn, in lost biodiversity in Brazil and in the oceans, and in urgent adaptations to dramatic, unstable climate change.” As I previously showed in the case of mink, the costs of mismanagement of zoonotic diseases and the reactive approach to dealing with pandemics are being paid through animal culling and slaughter. In addition, this is unfair, painful and immoral. The costs of developing new products for the cosmetic industry and drugs to stop aging are being paid by animals that are used in laboratories as “test objects” that at some point become “disposable.” The costs of so-called development and postponing solutions to climate change are being paid by millions of animals that are slaughtered annually on farms to feed a growing population and by impoverished farmers and food industry workers. The costs of our immense loneliness and dementia are being paid for by the suffering we cause to animal species and populations that we are pushing to the brink of extinction. (Sandler, 2017b, 2017a, 2021) Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, large rivers, seas and lakes are also paying a high price for our immoral lifestyles and our excessive consumption of raw materials.

It is absurd and shameful to see that the cost of wars, techno-scientific development and testing of unconventional weapons in the oceans can be paid at a very high price by our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, and thus each generation can take part, almost unsuspected, in what Gardiner calls a “severe intergenerational tyranny” (S. M. Gardiner, 2022b). In order not to end with such a discouraging panorama, I would like to evoke the words of Pope Francis: “Given that everything is closely related and that the current problems require a look that takes into account all the factors of the world crisis, I propose that we stop now to “think about the different aspects of an integral ecology, which clearly incorporates the human and social dimensions” (2015, p. 107). If “everything is related to everything else”, as the American biologist and environmentalist Barry Commoner also thought (Valera & Rodriguez, 2021), then we still have the possibility of building what Lori Gruen calls “the entangled empathy”, which is not only the impulse to go out to meet the other or try to “put oneself in the shoes of the other who suffers” but also requires a motivational effort. conscious to change our perspectives (2018b, p. 80). Entangled empathy has an emotional, cognitive, and psychological component, perhaps in the Aristotelian sense of cultivating a set of virtues and emotional responses such as solidarity, respect, and understanding, especially when we lack relevant information about the intentions, values, and belief systems at the table. Thus, entangled empathy has to do with our dispositions or habits; it also implies “moral courage” and practical-motivational components. Gruen adds: “Entangled empathy requires a certain amount of perspective taking. In this sense, it is more akin to some of the other ways of understanding empathy. Perspective taking means trying to get outside of your own sensibility even though of course we are limited, in some ways, by our own perspectives on the world” (Ibid., p. 81). In the case of prudent management of zoonoses, contextual observations are relevant because they help establish guidelines for action: for example, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, great panic and certain feelings of rage, fear and hatred spread. punitive toward bats and pangolins, which were seen as scapegoats at the beginning of the pandemic; many media outlets and some politicians also inoculated their audiences with feelings of retaliation and revenge toward “the Chinese” and even toward wet markets and wildlife as a whole. Gruen (Ibid., p. 81) adds: “With some animals, dangerous wild animals, for example, it is not going to be possible or wise to get close to those individuals. However, there are usually trained ethologists and zoologists who study these individuals.” When dealing with certain wild animals, such as lions, whales, bears, bats, and others, empathetic treatment means staying as far away from their environment as possible and learning to appreciate the network of interspecies assemblages of their ecological communities from a healthy distance. To do this, it is not needed do a thorough analysis, but rather exercise our common sense and follow our “best judgment.” Experts in wildlife management could tell us storytelling about how they learned to live with them, and the narratives also become a powerful resource to enhance entangled empathy and prudent treatment toward wildlife.

Finally, Gruen hits the bullseye when she says (Ibid., p. 81): “The process of entangled empathy then involves emotion, imagination, cognition, justice and care. it focuses on flourishing there is also room in the process for emotions like outrage and indignance and anger and shame. When we recognize that other human beings and other animals are not flourishing, when we recognize that other animals and other human beings are thought to be disposable and killable.” In short, a zoonoethics that aims to provide guidelines for prudently managing zoonoses and EIDs must recover the idea that all forms of life are valuable in themselves and are finely intertwined. No form of human or nonhuman life on planet Earth should become something “sacrificeable”, something “disposable”, or something “superfluous”. I believe that this type of ethical stance and this mood are what should accompany and encourage future developments in zoonoethics.

Declaration of conﬂicting interests:

The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding:

This research has been supported by Vice-Chancellor of Research, Catholic University of Temuco, Chile.

Alam, M. U., Rahman, M., Abdullah-Al-Masud, Islam, M. A., Asaduzzaman, M., Sarker, S., Rousham, E., & Unicomb, L. (2019). Human exposure to antimicrobial resistance from poultry production: Assessing hygiene and waste-disposal practices in Bangladesh. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222(8), 1068–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.07.007
Anthony, R., & De Paula Vieira, A. (2022). One Health Animal Disaster Management: An Ethics of Care Approach. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 25(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2022.2040360
Antoine-Moussiaux, N., Janssens de Bisthoven, L., Leyens, S., Assmuth, T., Keune, H., Jakob, Z., Hugé, J., & Vanhove, M. P. M. (2019). The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community. Sustainability Science, 14(6), 1729–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00674-z
Arato, J., Claussen, K., & Heath, J. B. (2020). The Perils of Pandemic Exceptionalism. American Journal of International Law, 114(4), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2020.67
Attfield, R. (2015). The Ethics of the Global Environment (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=4306096.
AVMA. (2008). One Health Initiative Task Force: a New Professional Imperative. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/onehealth_final.pdf
Baquedano, S. (2019). Ecocide or Environmental Self-Destruction? Enviromental Ethics, 41(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201941324
Barrett, M. A., & Osofsky, S. (2013). One Health: Interdependence of people, other species and the planet (4th, Ed.). Saunders Elsevier.
Beever, Jonathan & Morar, N. (2017). Interconnectedness and Interdependence: Challenges for Public Health Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(9), 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1353175
Beever, Jonathan & Morar, N. (2018). The epistemic and ethical onus of “One Health.” Bioethics, January, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12522
Behnam, B., Oishi, S. N., Uddin, S. M. N., Rafa, N., Nasiruddin, S. M., Mollah, A. M., & Hongzhi, M. (2020). Inadequacies in hospital waste and sewerage management in chattogram, Bangladesh: Exploring environmental and occupational health hazards. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(21), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219077
Belay, E. D., Kile, J. C., Hall, A. J., Barton-Behravesh, C., Parsons, M. B., Salyer, S., & Walke, H. (2017). Zoonotic disease programs for enhancing global health security. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 23, S65–S70. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2313.170544
Bezerra-Santos, M. A., Mendoza-Roldan, J. A., Thompson, R. C. A., Dantas-Torres, F., & Otranto, D. (2021). Illegal Wildlife Trade: A Gateway to Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. In Trends in Parasitology (Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 181–184). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2020.12.005
Bonilla-Aldana et al. (2020). Importance of the One Health approach to study the SARS-CoV-2 in Latin America. One Health, 10(May), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100147
Boratto, R., & Gibbs, C. (2017). Wildlife Crime. In H. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–30). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.376
Bostock, S. (1993). Zoos and Animal Rights. The ethics of keeping animals. Roudledge.
Brescia, T. (2015). The rediscovery of Potterian bioethics. Global Bioethics, 26(3–4), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1034472
Broom, D. M. (2019). Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. In Applied Animal Behaviour Science (Vol. 219). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.06.010
Browning, H. (2018). No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9741-8
Callicott, B. (2018). Environmental Ethics in the Anthropocene. Transtext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4000/transtexts.1064
Callicott, J. B. (2015). How Ecological Collectives are Morally Considerable. In S. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (pp. 113–124). Oxford University Press.
Callicott, J. B. (2023). Aldo Leopold as Educator: His Legacy for Field Environmental Philosophy (pp. 263–279). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_16
Callicott, J. B., Rozzi, R., Delgado, L., Monticino, M., Acevedo, M., & Harcombe, P. (2007). Biocomplexity and conservation of biodiversity hotspots: Three case studies from the Americas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1478), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1989
Capps, B. (2022). One health ethics. Bioethics, 36(4), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12984
Cardoso, P., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Barreiros, J. P., Bouhuys, J., Cheung, H., Davies, A., Kumschick, S., Longhorn, S. J., Martínez-Muñoz, C. A., Morcatty, T. Q., Peters, G., Ripple, W. J., Rivera-Téllez, E., Stringham, O. C., Toomes, A., Tricorache, P., & Fukushima, C. S. (2021). Scientists’ warning to humanity on illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109341
Cediel Becerra, N. M., Olaya Medellin, A. M., Tomassone, L., Chiesa, F., & De Meneghi, D. (2021). A Survey on One Health Approach in Colombia and Some Latin American Countries: From a Fragmented Health Organization to an Integrated Health Response to Global Challenges. Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.649240
Cediel-Becerra, N. M., Prieto-Quintero, S., Garzon, A. D. M., Villafañe-Izquierdo, M., Rúa-Bustamante, C. V., Jimenez, N., Hernández-Niño, J., & Garnier, J. (2022). Woman-Sensitive One Health Perspective in Four Tribes of Indigenous People From Latin America: Arhuaco, Wayuú, Nahua, and Kamëntsá. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.774713
Celermajer, D., Schlosberg, D., Wadiwel, D., & Winter, C. (2023). A Political Theory for a Multispecies, Climate-Challenged World: 2050. Political Theory, 51(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917221128833
Celermajer et al. (2020). Justice Through a Multispecies Lens. Contemporary Political Theory, 19(3), 475–512. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-020-00386-5
Chao et al. (2022). The Promise of Multispecies Justice. In S. Chao, K. Bolender, & E. Kirksey (Eds.), The Promise of Multispecies Justice. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478023524
Coghlan, S., & Coghlan, B. (2018). One Health, Bioethics, and Nonhuman Ethics. In American Journal of Bioethics (Vol. 18, Issue 11, pp. 3–5). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1524224
Collignon, Peter & McEwen, S. A. (2019). One health-its importance in helping to better control antimicrobial resistance. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed4010022
Coulter, K. (2016). Animals, Work, and the Promise if Interspecies Solidarity. Macmillan.
Cox, J. A., Vlieghe, E., Mendelson, M., Wertheim, H., Ndegwa, L., Villegas, M. V., Gould, I., & Levy Hara, G. (2017). Antibiotic stewardship in low- and middle-income countries: the same but different? In Clinical Microbiology and Infection (Vol. 23, Issue 11, pp. 812–818). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2017.07.010
Deane-Drummond, C. (2017). A Primer in Ecotheology: Theology for a Fragile Earth. Cascade Books. https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Deane-Drummond, C., & Artinian-Kaiser, R. (2018). Theology and Ecology across the Disciplines. On Care for Our Common Home. T & T Clark.
Deane-Drummond, Celia. (2019). Theological Ethics through a Multispecies Lens The Evolution of Wisdom, Volume I. Oxford University Press.
Dias, L. L., Nakamura-Silva, R., de Oliveira Junior, G. A. T., Mego, I. O. G., Mendonça, G. S., & Pitondo-Silva, A. (2021). Hospital liquid waste contaminated with multidrug-resistant bacteria raises a public health hazard alert in Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09477-1
Diehm, C. (2020). Connection to Nature, Deep Ecology, and Conservation Social Science. Human Nature Bonding and Protecting The Natural World. Lenxington Books.
Doron, S., & Davidson, L. E. (2011). Antimicrobial stewardship. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(11), 1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2011.0358
Dyar, O. J., Huttner, B., Schouten, J., & Pulcini, C. (2017). What is antimicrobial stewardship? In Clinical Microbiology and Infection (Vol. 23, Issue 11, pp. 793–798). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2017.08.026
Eidson, M. (2008). Zoonotic Disease. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Epidemiology (pp. 1–6). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412953948
Estomba, D., Ladio, A., & Lozada, M. (2006). Medicinal wild plant knowledge and gathering patterns in a Mapuche community from North-western Patagonia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 103(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2005.07.015
FAO; UNEP; WHO; WOAH. (2022). One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026. Working together for The Planet of Humans, Animals, Plants and The Environment. In One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026. FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2289en
Field, H. E. (2009). Bats and emerging zoonoses: Henipaviruses and SARS. Zoonoses and Public Health, 56(6–7), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01218.x
Filho, W. L., Leal, W., Anabela, F. ·, Azul, M., Brandli, L., Lange, A., & Wall, S. T. (2021). Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Series Editor: Partnerships for the Goals (Filho et al., Ed.). Springer. https://www.springer.com/series/15893
Fiore, R. (2016). Bioethics: Evironmental. In H. ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics (pp. 313–324). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_466
Fornet-Betancourt, R. (2009). De la importancia de la filosofía intercultural para la concepción y el desarrollo de nuevas políticas educativas en América Latina. In Interculturalidad crítica y descolonización Fundamentos para el debate (pp. 171–180). III-CAB.
Francione, G. (2004). Animals—Property or Persons? In M. Sunstein, Cass & Nussbaum (Ed.), Animal rights : current debates and new directions (pp. 108–142). Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e7FME0btkH0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Francisco, S. S. (2015). Laudato si’. Sobre el cuidado de la casa común. Salesianos impresores-PUC. www.iglesia.cl
Gardiner, S. M. (2022a). Environmentalizing Bioethics: Planetary Health in a Perfect Moral Storm. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 65(4), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2022.0048
Gardiner, S. M. (2022b). On the Scope of Institutions for Future Generations: Defending an Expansive Global Constitutional Convention That Protects against Squandering Generations. Ethics and International Affairs, 36(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267942200017X
Garner, R. (2013). A Theory of Justice for Animals. In A Theory of Justice for Animals. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936311.001.0001
Gibbs, C., & Boratto, R. (2017). Environmental Crime. In H. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–33). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.269
Gladkova, E. (2023). The Harms and Crimes of Farming/Food. In H. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.776
Gray, M. A. (1996). The International Crime of Ecocide. California Western International Law Journal, 26(2), 215–272. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/calwi26&i=227
Gruen, L. (2015). Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for our Relationships with Animals. Lantern Press.
Gruen, L. (2018a). Critical Terms for Animal Studies (L. Gruen, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Gruen, L. (2018b). Entangled Empathy: Politics and Practice. In Alexandra Böhm & Jessica Ullrich (Eds.), Animal Encounters Kontakt, Interaktion und Relationalität (pp. 77–83). The University of Chicago Press.
Guilherme, M. (2021). Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialogue and Equity for Sustainable Development. In W. , Leal Filho, A. , Marisa Azul, L. , Brandli, A. , Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.), Partnerships for the Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 599–610). Springer.
Guilherme, M. M. D. (2023). Global debates, local challenges: the South talks back. Language and Intercultural Communication, 23(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2159969
Healey, R., & Pepper, A. (2021). Interspecies justice: agency, self-determination, and assent. Philosophical Studies, 178(4), 1223–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01472-5
Hemida, M. G., & Ba Abduallah, M. M. (2020). The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak from a one health perspective. One Health, 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100127
Herten, J. Van, Buikstra, S., & Bovenkerk, B. (2020). Ethical Decision ‑ Making in Zoonotic Disease Control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 33(2), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09828-x
Horefti, E. (2023). The Importance of the One Health Concept in Combating Zoonoses. In Pathogens (Vol. 12, Issue 8). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12080977
Ishii, M. (2021). The code of pangolins interspecies ethics in the face of sars-cov-2. Current Anthropology, 62(5), 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1086/716762
Jasovský et al. (2016). Antimicrobial resistance—a threat to the world’s sustainable development. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 121(3), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2016.1195900
Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. University of Chicago Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/JONTIO-4
Kirchhoffer, D. G. (2018). How Ecology Can Save the Life of Theology: A Philosophical Contribution to the Engagement of Ecology and Theology. In C. & A.-K. R. Deane-Drummond (Ed.), Theology and Ecology Across the Disciplines: On Care for Our Common Home (pp. 53–64). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kirk, J., & McDonald, M. (2021). The Politics of Exceptionalism: Securitization and COVID-19. Global Studies Quarterly, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksab024
Konda et al. (2020a). Potential Zoonotic Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and Insights for Preventing Future Pandemics Through One Health Approach. Cureus, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8932
Konda, M., Dodda, B., Konala, V. M., Naramala, S., & Adapa, S. (2020b). Potential Zoonotic Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and Insights for Preventing Future Pandemics Through One Health Approach. Cureus, 12(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8932
Lammie, S. L., & Hughes, J. M. (2016). Antimicrobial Resistance, Food Safety, and One Health : The Need for Convergence. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol., 7(January), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-041715-033251
Layton, D. S., Choudhary, A., & Bean, A. G. D. (2017). Breaking the chain of zoonoses through biosecurity in livestock. Vaccine, 35(44), 5967–5973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.110
Leboeuf, A. (2011). Making Sense of One Health. Cooperating at the Human-Animal-Ecosystem Health Interface. In Web report (Issue April). http://www.academia.edu/633338/Making_sense_of_One_Health
Lecaros, J. A. (2013). Ecological ethics: The road of responsability towards global bioethics. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 04, 201–215.
Lee, L. (2017). A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(9), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1353164
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.
Lerner, H., & Berg, C. (2015). The concept of health in One Health and some practical implications for research and education: what is One Health? Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 5(1), 25300. https://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v5.25300
Lerner, H., & Berg, C. (2017). A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4(September), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00163
Leroy, E., Ar Gouilh, M. &, & Brugère-Picoux, J. (2020). The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to pets and other wild and domestic animals strongly mandates a one-health strategy to control the COVID-19 pandemic. One Health, xxxx, 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100133
Littmann, J. (2014). Antimicrobial resistance and Distributive Justice. UCL Discovery, February, 1–211.
Mackenzie et al. (2013). One Health: The Human– Animal–Environment Interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The Concept and Examples of a One Health Approach (J. Mackenzie, M. Jeggo, P. and Daszak, & J. Richt, Eds.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36889-9
Macklin, R. (2012). A global ethics approach to vulnerability. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 5(2), 64–81. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/487994
Macklin, R. (2022). A new definition for global bioethics: COVID-19, a case study. Global Bioethics, 33(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011001
Macpherson, C. (2022). Global bioethics: it’s past and future. In Global Bioethics (Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 45–49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011009
Marchese, A., & Hovorka, A. (2022). Zoonoses Transfer, Factory Farms and Unsustainable Human–Animal Relations. Sustainability, 14(19), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912806
McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Control in Britain: Science, Policy and Politics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9686-3
McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2018). A proposal for a UK Ethics Council for animal policy: The case for putting ethics back into policy making. Animals, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060088
McEwen, Scott & Collignon, P. (2018). Antimicrobial Resistance: a One Health Perspective. Microbiology Spectrum, 6(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.arba-0009-2017
Mignolo, W., & Walsh, C. (2018). On Decoloniality. Concepts, Analitics, Praxis. Duke University Press.
Milburn, J. (2017). Robert Nozick on nonhuman animals: Rights, value and the meaning of life. In Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues (pp. 97–120). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54549-3_5
Millanao, A. R., Barrientos-Schaffeld, C., Siegel-Tike, C. D., Tomova, A., Ivanova, L., Godfrey, H. P., Dölz, H. J., Buschmann, A. H., & Cabello, F. C. (2018). Antimicrobial resistance in Chile and the one health paradigm: Dealing with threats to human and veterinary health resulting from antimicrobial use in Salmon aquaculture and the clinic. Revista Chilena de Infectologia, 35(3), 299–303. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0716-10182018000300299
Molares, S., & Ladio, A. (2009). Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: Use patterns on a regional scale. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 122(2), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.01.003
Muzur, A. & Rinčić, I. (2015). Two kinds of globality: a comparison of Fritz Jahr and Van Rensselaer Potter’s bioethics. Global Bioethics, 26(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1007616
Muzur e tal. (2016). The Real Wisconsin Idea: The Seven Pillars of Van Rensselaer Potter’s Bioethics. Agric Environ Ethics, 29, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9621-z
Naess, A. (1990). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge University Press, 323–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90047-5
Naess, A. (2005a). Gestalt Ontology and Gestalt Thinking. In The Selected Works of Arne Naess (pp. 2727–2733). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4519-6_124
Naess, A. (2005b). Self-Realization: An Ecological Approach to Being in the World. In H. G. & A. Drengson (Ed.), The Selected Works of Arne Naess (pp. 515–530). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4519-6_128
Nieuwland, J. & Meijboom, F. (2013). One-Health as a normative concep: implications for food safety at the wildlife interface. In Know your food: Food ethics and innovation (pp. 132–137). Wageningen Academic Publishers. https://books.google.cl/books?hl=es&lr=&id=SBPTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA132&dq=health+as+normative+concept&ots=xXXraWU2bs&sig=u1QCeeqo6xyCnpCziY3wxs6R7Lg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true
Nieuwland, Joachim & Meijboom, F. (2020). One health: How interdependence enriches veterinary ethics education. Animals, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010013
Nijman, V. (2021). Illegal and Legal Wildlife Trade Spreads Zoonotic Diseases. In Trends in Parasitology (Vol. 37, Issue 5, pp. 359–360). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2021.02.001
Nussbaum, M. (2022). Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. Simon & Schuster.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2008). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. In Modernism/modernity (Vol. 15, Issue 1). The Belknap Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/mod.2008.0014
Origgi, G. (2014). Fear of principles? A cautious defense of the Precautionary Principle. 13, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-014-0152-x
O’Riordan, T. & Cameron, J. (1995). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan.
Ortiz Millán, G. (2020). Pandemias, zoonosis y comercio de animales silvestres. Revista de Bioética y Derecho, 50, 19–35. www.bioeticayderecho.ub.edu
Ortiz-Millán, G. (2022). Bioethics, globalization and pandemics. Global Bioethics, 33(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011006
Osińska, A., Korzeniewska, E., Harnisz, M., Felis, E., Bajkacz, S., Jachimowicz, P., Niestępski, S., & Konopka, I. (2020). Small-scale wastewater treatment plants as a source of the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes in the aquatic environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121221
Palmer, C., Sandøe, P., & Weary, D. (2022). Ethicists’ commentary on humane killing of healthy surplus animals. Canadian Vaterinary Journal, 63(6), 581–582.
Pelluchon, C. (2016). Animal Ethics. In H. ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics (pp. 118–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0
Pelluchon, C. (2018). Manifiesto animalista. Politizar la causa animal. Reservoir Books.
Perez-Quezada, J. F., Barichivich, J., Urrutia-Jalabert, R., Carrasco, E., Aguilera, D., Bacour, C., & Lara, A. (2023). Warming and Drought Weaken the Carbon Sink Capacity of an Endangered Paleoendemic Temperate Rainforest in South America. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG007258
Perez-Quezada, J. F., Pérez, C. A., Brito, C. E., Fuentes, J. P., Gaxiola, A., Aguilera-Riquelme, D., & Lopatin, J. (2021). Biotic and abiotic drivers of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stocks in a temperate rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119341
Potter, V. R. (1970). Bioethics, the Science of Survival. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 14(1), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015
Potter, V. R. (1971). Bioethics: bridge to the future. Prentice-Hall. http://todosibuc.uc.cl/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=puc_alma2161019060003396&indx=1&recIds=puc_alma2161019060003396&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&query=any%2Ccon
Potter, V. R. (1973). The Ethics of Nature and Nurture. Zygon, 8(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1973.tb00213.x
Potter, V. R. (1987). Aldo Leopold’s land ethic revisited: two kinds of bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 30(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1987.0053
Potter, V. R. (1992). Global Bioethics as a Secular Source of Moral Authority for Long-Term Human Survival. Global Bioethics, 5(1), 5–11. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11287462.1992.10800589
Potter, V. R. (1996). Real Bioethics: Biocentric or Anthropocentric? Ethics and the Environment, 1(2), 177–183.
Potter V.R. y Potter Lisa. (2001). Global Bioethics: Converting Sustainable Development to Global Survival. Global Bioethics, 14(4), 9–17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11287462.2001.10800809?needAccess=true
Rahman, M. T., Sobur, M. A., Islam, M. S., Ievy, S., Hossain, M. J., Zowalaty, M. E. E., Rahman, A. M. M. T., & Ashour, H. M. (2020). Zoonotic diseases: Etiology, impact, and control. Microorganisms, 8(9), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8091405
Rawlinson et al. (2017). The Routledge handbook of food ethics (M. Rawlinson & C. Ward, Eds.). Routledge.
R’boul, H. (2022). Epistemological plurality in intercultural communication knowledge. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2022.2069784
Read, R. y, & O’riordan, T. (2017). The Precautionary Principle Under Fire. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 59, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2017.1350005
Rechnitzer, T. (2022). Applying Reflective Equilibrium. Towards the Justification of a Precautionary Principle. Springer.
Regan, T. (1980). Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Environmental Ethics, 2(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19802225
Roe, D., Dickman, A., Kock, R., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Rihoy, E., & ’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2020). Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. In World Development (Vol. 136). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105121
Roger et al. (2016). One Health and EcoHealth: the same wine in different bottles? Infection Ecology and Epidemiology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/IEE.V6.30978
Rollin, B. (2001). Ethics, science, and antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011315022587
Rollin, B. E. (2017). Animal Ethics and the Culling of Badgers: A Reply to McCulloch and Reiss. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(4), 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9681-8
Rolston, H. (2010). Wild Animals and Ethical Perspectives. In Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (2nd ed., pp. 603–606). Greenwood Press. http://hdl.handle.net/10217/48073
Rowlands, M. (1997). Contractarianism and Animal Rights. In Journal of Applied Philosophy (Vol. 14, Issue 3).
Rozzi et al. (2013). Linking Ecology and Ethics for a Changing World. Springer.
Rozzi et al. (2020). Un centinela para el monitoreo del cambio climático y su impacto sobre la biodiversidad en la cumbre austral de América: la nueva red de estudios a largo Plazo Cabo de Hornos. Anales Instituto Patagonia, 48(3), 45–81.
Rozzi, R. (2015). Implications of the Biocultural Ethic for Earth Stewardship. In Rozzi R. et al. (Ed.), Earth Stewardship. Ecology and Ethics (pp. 113–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_9
Rüegg, S., Häsler, B., & Zinsstag, J. (2018). Integrated approaches to health. A handbook for the evaluation of One Health. In Rüegg S, Häsler B, & Zinsstag J (Eds.), Integrated approaches to health. Wageningen Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-875-9
Ryan, E. B., & Weary, D. M. (2023). Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products. Animal Welfare, 32. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.38
Salas Astraín, R. (n.d.). Poderes coloniales, violencias y territorios interétnicos Colonial Powers, Violence and Inter-ethnic Territories. Revista Wirapuru, 2(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4640461
Salas Astraín, R. (2020). Poderes coloniales, violencias y territorios interétnicos Colonial Powers, Violence and Inter-ethnic Territories. Revista Wirapuru, 2(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4640461
Salas Astrain, R. (2021). Poderes y Asimetrías Globales. Aclaraciones sobre la metáfora de la traducción como modelo teórico-práctico en Filosofía Política. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 26(93), 300–311. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?
Salas, R., & Sandoval, F. (2020). Crisis sociocultural, justicia contextual y pensamiento crítico latinoamericano. Teoría y Praxis, 18(37), 45–76. https://www.revistas.udb.edu.sv/ojs/index.php/typ/article/view/45
Sánchez, C. A., Venkatachalam-Vaz, J., & Drake, J. M. (2021). Spillover of zoonotic pathogens: A review of reviews. In Zoonoses and Public Health (Vol. 68, Issue 6, pp. 563–577). John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12846
Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 5(5), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039991289185
Sandler, R. (2015). Food Ethics: The Basics (R. Sandler, Ed.). Routledge. https://www.book2look.com/embed/9781135045463
Sandler, R. (2017a). De-extinction and Conservation Genetics in the Anthropocene. Hastings Center Report, 47, S43–S47. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.751
Sandler, R. (2017b). De-Extinction. Costs, benefits and ethics. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1(4), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0105
Sandler, R. (2021). On the Massness of Mass Extinction. Philosophia, October, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00436-1
Savin, M., Bierbaum, G., Hammerl, J. A., Heinemann, C., Parcina, M., Sib, E., Voigt, A., & Kreyenschmidt, J. (2020). Antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antimicrobial residues in wastewater and process water from German pig slaughterhouses and their receiving municipal wastewater treatment plants. Science of the Total Environment, 727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138788
Schlosberg, D. (2014). Ecological Justice for the Anthropocene. Political Animals and Animal Politics, 75–89.
Schrecker, T. (2020). Globalization and health: political grand challenges. Review of International Political Economy, 27(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1607768
Schwegler, V. (2017). The Disposable Nature: The Case of Ecocide and Corporate Accountability. Amsterdam Law Forum, 9(3), 71–99. HeinOnline
Sell, Susan & Williams, O. (2020). Review of International Political Economy Health under capitalism: a global political economy of structural pathogenesis. Review of International Political Economy, 27(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1659842
Shaheen, M. N. F. (2022). The concept of one health applied to the problem of zoonotic diseases. In Reviews in Medical Virology (Vol. 32, Issue 4). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2326
Singer, P. (1987). Animal Liberation or Animal Rights? In Source: The Monist (Vol. 70, Issue 1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903010
Singer, P. (2015). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. (40th ed.). Open Road Media.
Sollund, R. (2021). Nonspeciesist Criminology, Wildlife Trade, and Animal Victimization. In H. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–28). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.608
Steenson, S., & Buttriss, J. L. (2020). The challenges of defining a healthy and ‘sustainable’ diet. Nutrition Bulletin, 45(2), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12439
Stoll-Kleemann, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2015). The sustainability challenges of our meat and dairy diets. Environment, 57(3), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2015.1025644
Sunstein, C. R., & Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. In Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305104.001.0001
ten Have, H. (2022). The challenges of global bioethics. Global Bioethics, 33(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011008
ten Have H and Gordijn B. (2014). Global Bioethics. In G. B. ten Have H.A.M.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Global Bioethics. (pp. 3–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_63
Thaler, M. (2022a). No Other Planet. Utopian Visions for a Climate-Changed World. In No Other Planet. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030250
Thaler, M. (2022b). What If: multispecies justice as the expression of utopian desire. Environmental Politics, 31(2), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1899683
Thompson, P. &, & List, M. (2015). Ebola needs One Bioethics. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 18(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2015.1016957
Thompson, P. B. (2015). From Synthetic Bioethics to One Bioethics: A Reply to Critics. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 18(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2015.1070518
Thompson, P. B. (2016). The Emergence of Food Ethics. Food Ethics, 1(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-016-0005-x
Thompson, P. B. (2020). One Bioethics for Covid 19? In Agriculture and Human Values (Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 619–620). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10061-5
Tong, R. (2022). Towards a feminist global ethics. Global Bioethics, 33(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011002
Torri, M. C. (2010). Medicinal plants used in mapuche traditional medicine in Araucanía, Chile: Linking sociocultural and religious values with local heath practices. Complementary Health Practice Review, 15(3), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533210110391077
Tschakert et al. (2020). Multispecies justice: Climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.699
Tschakert, P. (2022). More-than-human solidarity and multispecies justice in the climate crisis. Environmental Politics, 31(2), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1853448
Turcios-Casco, M. A., & Cazzolla Gatti, R. (2020). Do not blame bats and pangolins! Global consequences for wildlife conservation after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29(13), 3829–3833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02053-y
Uretsky, S. D., Odle, T. G., & Colby, H. (2020). Zoonosis. In Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health (pp. 1–6). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/acu.edu.au?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.credoreference.com%2Fcontent%2Fentry%2Fgalegph%2Fzoonosis%2F0%3FinstitutionId%3D70
Valera, L. (2017). La bioética de Potter: la búsqueda de la sabiduría en el origen de la bioética y de la ética ambiental. Medicina y Ética, 2(August), 393–411. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7333443
Valera, L. (2018). The spontaneous Experience to the Cosmos: Arne Naess’s Phenomenology. Problemos, 93(93), 142–153. http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/problemos/article/view/11758/10386
Valera, L. (2019a). Depth, Ecology, and the Deep Ecology Movement: Arne Næss’s Proposal for the Future. Enviromental Ethics, 41(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201941437
Valera, L. (2019b). Human ecology. New challenges for ecology and philosophy. Arbor, 195(792). https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2019.792n2010
Valera, L. (2020). New Technologies. Rethinking Ethics and the Environment (J. C. Valera, Luca & Castilla, Ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29443-4_4
Valera, L. & Rodriguez, J. (2021). Tecnología, ecología y la ciencia de la supervivencia: Una mirada al pensamiento de Barry Commoner para el futuro. In H. Velázquez (Ed.), Sociedad Tecnológica y Futuro Humano. El Ser Humano en la Era Tecnológica. (pp. 165–188). Editorial Tirant Lo Blanch S.L./Universidad Mayor.
Van Herten, J. (2021). Considerations for an ethic of One Health Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control. Wageningen University.
Van Herten, J., & Bovenkerk, B. (2021). The Precautionary Principle in Zoonotic Disease Control. Public Health Ethics, 14(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab012
van Herten, J., Bovenkerk, B., & Verweij, M. (2019). One Health as a moral dilemma: Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control. Zoonoses and Public Health, 66(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12536
Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Weary, D. M. (2015). Animal Welfare Concerns and Values of Stakeholders Within the Dairy Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9523-x
Ventura, B. A., Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Wittman, H., & Weary, D. M. (2016). What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS ONE, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733
Wallach, A. D., Batavia, C., Bekoff, M., Alexander, S., Baker, L., Ben-Ami, D., Boronyak, L., Cardilin, A. P. A., Carmel, Y., Celermajer, D., Coghlan, S., Dahdal, Y., Gomez, J. J., Kaplan, G., Keynan, O., Khalilieh, A., Kopnina, H., Lynn, W. S., Narayanan, Y., … Ramp, D. (2020). Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13494
Waltner-Toews, D. (2017). Zoonoses, One Health and complexity: wicked problems and constructive conflict. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 372, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0171
Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2023). Review: Using animal welfare to frame discussion on dairy farm technology. In Animal (Vol. 17). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100836
Weitzel et al. (2020). Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. January. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101942
White, R. (2019). Loving the Planet to Death: Tourism and Ecocide. In S. O. Raymen T. (Ed.), Deviant Leisure. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/10.1007/978-3-030-17736-2_13
Whitehouse, P. J. (2003). The rebirth of bioethics: Extending the original formulations of van rensselaer potter. American Journal of Bioethics, 3(4), W26–W31. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603322614751
WHO. (2015). Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. https://www.amcra.be/swfiles/files/WHO actieplan_90.pdf
WHO. (2020, July 29). Zoonoses. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/zoonoses
WHO. (2022). A health perspective on the role of the environment in One Health. http://apps.who.int/iris
WHO. (2023). Zoonotic disease: emerging public health threats in the Region. https://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
Wilkes, M. S., Conrad, P. A., & Winer, J. N. (2019). One health–one education: Medical and veterinary inter-professional training. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 46(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.1116-171r
Willett, C. (2014). Interspecies Ethics. Columbia University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=1785216.
Winck, G. R., Raimundo, R. L. G., Fernandes-Ferreira, H., Bueno, M. G., D’andrea, P. S., Rocha, F. L., Cruz, G. L. T., Vilar, E. M., Brandão, M., Luís, J., Cordeiro, P., & Andreazzi, C. S. (2022). Socioecological vulnerability and the risk of zoonotic disease emergence in Brazil. Sci. Adv, 8, 1–12. https://www.science.org
Wong, R. W. Y. (2023). The Harms and Crimes Against Terrestrial Wildlife (Nonhuman Animals). In H. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–19). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.770
Zhao, J., Cui, W., & Tian, B. P. (2020). The Potential Intermediate Hosts for SARS-CoV-2. In Frontiers in Microbiology (Vol. 11). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.580137
Zhu et al. (2019). Soil biota, antimicrobial resistance and planetary health. Environment International, 131(June), 105059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105059
Zinsstag et al. (2021). One Health. The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches (J. ZInsstag, E. Schelling, L. Crump, M. Whittaker, & C. Stephen, Eds.). CAB International.
Zinsstag et al. (2022). The Promotion and Development of One Health at Swiss TPH and Its Greater Potential. Diseases, 10(65), 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10030065
Zinsstag, J., Crump, L., Schelling, E., Hattendorf, J., Maidane, Y. O., Ali, K. O., Muhummed, A., Umer, A. A., Aliyi, F., Nooh, F., Abdikadir, M. I., Ali, S. M., Hartinger, S., Mäusezahl, D., de White, M. B. G., Cordon-Rosales, C., Castillo, D. A., McCracken, J., Abakar, F., … Cissé, G. (2018). Climate change and One Health. In FEMS Microbiology Letters (Vol. 365, Issue 11). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny085

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

One Health, Ecological Bioethics, and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A call for Global Action

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction: Incremental Risks of Zoonotic Diseases

2. One Health and Ecological Bioethics: We need One Bioethics?

3. The Ethical Dilemmas of One Health: The Case of Animal Slaughter, Outline of One-Zoonoethics

4. Zoonoses and One Health: A call for Action and Interepistemic Dialogues

5. Final remarks: Zoonoethics and the ecotheological turn

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1