A Proposal for a Comprehensive Human-Animal Approach of Evaluation for Animal-Assisted Interventions.

Background: An important field of human-animal interactions is animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), which refers to research on human-animal interactions in order to promote or facilitate health or education in humans. Very few studies among the rich literature on AAIs seem to include aspects of animal welfare and/or animal ethics. Also, very few studies on AAIs have a comprehensive human-animal approach that studies animals, humans, and the relations between them at the same time. This paper tries to argue for and present a possible comprehensive human-animal approach to evaluate AAIs. Methods: A combination of the species and role approach proposed by Lerner, the capability approach proposed by Nussbaum, and a modified comprehensive human-animal approach to evaluate AAIs proposed by Lerner and Silfverberg was philosophically analyzed. Results: This paper shows that the combination is the modified role and species version of the capabilities approach, and by following it one could do a comprehensive human-animal approach of an evaluation of AAIs. Conclusion: Although the aim was reached for horses and animal-assisted therapy, further work needs to be done for all species suggested in the IAHAIO (International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations) White Paper as well as for all branches of AAIs in order to establish this comprehensive human-animal approach.

A critical analysis of definitions of health as balance in a One Health perspective.

Definitions of health in terms of some kind of balance form a category of their own within the sphere of health definition. Such definitions have their roots in the beginnings of scientific medicine, and popular versions are common among lay people. It has even been claimed that balance is fundamental to health for all species. Several present-day definitions of health in terms of balance are presented here. Particular attention is given to the call for a definition of health applicable to both humans and animals within the One Health approach, involving human medicine, veterinary medicine and ecology. Definitions in terms of balance have been suggested but none has been thoroughly analysed with regard to its suitability. There are therefore three concerns in this paper. The first is to introduce versions of the category of balance, as a first step towards a nomenclature of health definitions. The second is to analyse the claim made recently that balance is a universal criterion of health in all species including humans. The third is to ascertain whether any of the versions discussed is suited to the One Health approach.

A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health.

Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical-and possibly mental-health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus, and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper, we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis, we will focus on at least two areas. These are (1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and (2) core values present within the approach. In the first area, our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health, and how one values humans, animals, and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread "umbrella" depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts, and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms, and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.

Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans: a review of the scientific literature from a One Health perspective.

There are more herbivorous waterfowl (swans and geese) close to humans, livestock and poultry than ever before. This creates widespread conflict with agriculture and other human interests, but also debate about the role of swans and geese as potential vectors of disease of relevance for human and animal health. Using a One Health perspective, we provide the first comprehensive review of the scientific literature about the most relevant viral, bacterial, and unicellular pathogens occurring in wild geese and swans. Research thus far suggests that these birds may play a role in transmission of avian influenza virus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and antibiotic resistance. On the other hand, at present there is no evidence that geese and swans play a role in transmission of Newcastle disease, duck plague, West Nile virus, Vibrio, Yersinia, Clostridium, Chlamydophila, and Borrelia. Finally, based on present knowledge it is not possible to say if geese and swans play a role in transmission of Escherichia coli, Pasteurella, Helicobacter, Brachyspira, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Microsporidia. This is largely due to changes in classification and taxonomy, rapid development of identification methods and lack of knowledge about host specificity. Previous research tends to overrate the role of geese and swans as disease vectors; we do not find any evidence that they are significant transmitters to humans or livestock of any of the pathogens considered in this review. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep poultry and livestock separated from small volume waters used by many wild waterfowl, but there is no need to discourage livestock grazing in nature reserves or pastures where geese and swans are present. Under some circumstances it is warranted to discourage swans and geese from using wastewater ponds, drinking water reservoirs, and public beaches. Intensified screening of swans and geese for AIV, West Nile virus and anatid herpesvirus is warranted.

The concept of health in One Health and some practical implications for research and education: what is One Health?

From a strict biological point of view, humans are just one species among other species, albeit one with very special capacities, characteristics, and skills. Among scientists, it is generally acknowledged that we share many features with other animal species, which are certainly relevant when the concepts of health and disease are discussed. The term 'One Health' is used in many different contexts and by people with varying backgrounds. However, there appears to be some confusion as to what the term really means, and it is used in a wide range of contexts, often including or bordering concepts such as infection biology, contagious diseases, zoonotic infections, evolutionary medicine, comparative medicine, and translational medicine. Without claiming to present the one and only true interpretation, we will argue for a wide approach using the 'umbrella' depiction developed by One Health Sweden. We argue that this one should, compared to other demarcations, be more useful to science. We will also analyze the concept of health on different levels: individual, population, and ecosystem health, and describe how these levels inherently influence each other for both humans and animals. Both these choices are normative and have practical consequences for research and education, a way of reasoning which we develop further in this paper. Finally, we conclude that the choice of term for the approach might be normative in deciding which disciplines or parts of disciplines that may be included.

Reference values and the problem of health as normality: a veterinary attempt in the light of a one health approach.

Reference values seem crucial to both veterinary medicine and human medicine. The main critique is that the theoretical connections between the concepts of reference values, normality, and health are weak. In this paper, we analyze especially one attempt in veterinary medicine to establish such a theoretical connection. We find that this attempt fails because it is circular. In conclusion, we would postulate that there are two apparent ways forward: to aim for a definition of health not based on the concept of normality, or to develop the concept of normality as separate from statistical normality. These goals can be reached with a one health perspective.

Normality and naturalness: a comparison of the meanings of concepts used within veterinary medicine and human medicine.

This article analyses the different connotations of "normality" and "being natural," bringing together the theoretical discussion from both human medicine and veterinary medicine. We show how the interpretations of the concepts in the different areas could be mutually fruitful. It appears that the conceptions of "natural" are more elaborate in veterinary medicine, and can be of value to human medicine. In particular they can nuance and correct conceptions of nature in human medicine that may be too idealistic. Correspondingly, the wide ranging conceptions of "normal" in human medicine may enrich conceptions in veterinary medicine, where the discussions seem to be sparse. We do not argue that conceptions from veterinary medicine should be used in human medicine and vice versa, but only that it could be done and that it may well be fruitful. Moreover, there are overlaps between some notions of normal and natural, and further conceptual analysis on this overlap is needed.

Veterinary surgeons' attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide: an empirical study of Swedish experts on euthanasia.

AIM: To examine the hypothesis that knowledge about physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia is associated with a more restrictive attitude towards PAS. DESIGN: A questionnaire about attitudes towards PAS, including prioritization of arguments pro and contra, was sent to Swedish veterinary surgeons. The results were compared with those from similar surveys of attitudes among the general public and physicians. PARTICIPANTS: All veterinary surgeons who were members of the Swedish Veterinary Association and had provided an email address (n=2421). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Similarities or differences in response pattern between veterinary surgeons, physicians and the general public. RESULTS: The response pattern among veterinary surgeons and the general public was almost similar in all relevant aspects. Of the veterinarians 75% (95% CI 72% to 78%) were in favour of PAS, compared with 73% (95% CI 69% to 77%) among the general public. Only 10% (95% CI 5% to 15%) of the veterinary surgeons were against PAS, compared with 12% (95% CI 5% to 19%) among the general public. Finally, 15% (95% CI 10% to 21%) of veterinarians were undecided, compared with 15% (95% CI 8% to 22%) among the general public. Physicians had a more restrictive attitude to PAS than the general public. CONCLUSIONS: Since veterinary surgeons have frequent practical experience of euthanasia in animals, they do have knowledge about what euthanasia really is. Veterinary surgeons and the general public had an almost similar response pattern. Accordingly it seems difficult to maintain that knowledge about euthanasia is unambiguously associated with a restrictive attitude towards PAS.