Whose health and which health? Two theoretical flaws in the One Health paradigm.

The One Health approach is a prominent paradigm for research and healthcare practice and increasingly applied in various fields. Theoretical and normative implications of the approach, however, remain underexposed so far, leading to conceptual incoherencies and uncertainties in the application of the concept. This article sheds light on two particularly influential theoretical flaws inherent to the One Health approach. The first difficulty relates to the question of whose health is considered in the One Health paradigm: humans and animals are obviously situated on a different level than the environment, so that the individual, population, and ecosystem dimensions need to be considered. The second theoretical flaw is related to the question of which concept of health can be meaningfully referred to when speaking of One Health. This problem is addressed by analyzing four key theoretical conceptions of health from the philosophy of medicine (well-being, natural functioning, capacity of achieving vital goals, and homeostasis and resilience) regarding their suitability for the aims of One Health initiatives. It appears that none of the concepts analyzed fully meets the demands of an equitable consideration of human, animal, and environmental health. Potential solutions lie in accepting that one concept of health is more appropriate for some entities than for others and/or forgoing the idea of a uniform conception of health. As a result of the analysis, the authors conclude that theoretical and normative assumptions underlying concrete One Health initiatives should be made more explicit.

End-of-life decisions: A focus group study with German health professionals from human and veterinary medicine.

Introduction: At first glance, human and (companion animal) veterinary medicine share challenging processes in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making. At the same time, treatment options in both professions are substantially different. The potential of an interdisciplinary exchange between both fields has been neglected by empirical research so far. Methods: In this qualitative study, professionals from both fields were brought together in interdisciplinary focus groups to investigate the ethical aspects of convergences and divergences in EOL situations in human and veterinary medicine. The authors present and discuss an innovative mix of materials and methods as stimuli for discussion and for generating hypotheses. Results: The results point toward a general convergence of issues, challenges, and judgements in EOL situations in both fields, such as professional ethos, communication with the family and the role thereof as well as the ideals of death, clearly exceeding the expectations of study participants. At the same time, the study highlights a few prominent differences such as the access to patients' preferences or legal and practical constraints. Discussion: The findings suggest that using social science methods in empirical interdisciplinary biomedical-veterinary ethics could help to shed more light on this new area. Animal as well as human patients can potentially benefit from this mutual, scientifically accompanied exchange and the resulting identification and corrections of misconceptions.

Killing Kira, Letting Tom Go?-An Empirical Study on Intuitions Regarding End-of-Life Decisions in Companion Animals and Humans.

Veterinary and human medicine share the challenges of end-of-life decisions. While there are legal and practical differences, there might be parallels and convergences regarding decision-making criteria and reasoning patterns in the two disciplines. In this online survey, six variants of a fictitious thought experiment aimed at pointing out crucial criteria relevant for decision-making within and across both professional fields. The six variants introduced four human and two animal patients with the same disease but differing in age, gender and, in case of the human patients, in terms of their state of consciousness. Participants could choose between four different treatment options: euthanasia, continuous sedation, a potentially curative treatment with severe side effects and no intervention. Study participants were human and veterinary medical professionals and an additional control group of lay people. Decisions and justifications for the six variants differed but the three groups of participants answered rather homogeneously. Besides the patient's "suffering" as a main criterion, "age", "autonomy" and, to a lesser extent, "species" were identified as important criteria for decision-making in all three groups. The unexpected convergences as well as subtle differences in argumentation patterns give rise to more in-depth research in this cross-disciplinary field.

Dying like a dog: the convergence of concepts of a good death in human and veterinary medicine.

Standard views of good death in human and veterinary medicine considerably differ from one another. Whereas the good death ideal in palliative medicine emphasizes the positive aspects of non-induced dying, veterinarians typically promote a quick and painless killing with the aim to end suffering. Recent developments suggest a convergence of both professions and professional attitudes, however. Palliative physicians are confronted with patients wishing to be 'put to sleep', while veterinarians have begun to integrate principles and practices from hospice care. We will argue that the discourses on good human and animal deaths are not distinct, but that they interact and influence each other. On the one hand, veterinary medicine adapts techniques like chemotherapy or sedation from palliative end-of-life care. On the other hand, philosophers, veterinarians, pet owners, patients and the general public alike make certain assumptions about the (dis)analogy of human and animal dying or killing. Unfortunately, these interactions have only scarcely been reflected normatively, especially on the part of human medicine. Conflicts and misattributions with potential serious negative consequences for the (animal and human) patients' wellbeing are provoked. For these reasons, palliative physicians and veterinarians are invited to engage in the debate around human and animal end-of-life care.

Philosophy of a "Good Death" in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice.

Moral stress is a major concern in veterinary practice. Often, it is associated with the challenges in end-of-life situations. Euthanasia, however, is also meant to bring relief to animal patients and their owners. The reasons for the moral strain euthanizing animals causes to professional veterinarians need to be further clarified. This article investigates "euthanasia" from a philosophical, legal, and practical perspective. After introducing relevant aspects of euthanasia in small animal practice, the term is analyzed from an ethical point of view. That includes both a broad and a narrow definition of "euthanasia" and underlying assumptions regarding different accounts of animal death and well-being. Then, legal and soft regulations are discussed with regard to the theoretical aspects and practical challenges, also including questions of personal morality. It is argued that the importance of ethical definitions and assumptions concerning euthanasia and their intertwinement with both law and practical challenges should not be neglected. The conclusion is that veterinarians should clarify the reasons for their potential discomfort and that they should be supported by improved decision-making tools, by implementation of theoretical and practical ethics in veterinary education, and by updated animal welfare legislation.