The right to health for humans and animals

The increasing risk of zoonoses like Ebola or Q-fever – diseases that can ‘jump’ from non-human animals to humans – was an important motivation for my PhD research. So it was almost surreal to defend my PhD on ‘interspecies’ health policies in May 2020 while the corona pandemic was raging.

Central to my dissertation is One Health, a concept that was first presented in 2004, at a conference hosted by The Wildlife Conservation Society and that has come up increasingly in various public health policies since.

In a narrow sense One Health is concerned with the threats to public health coming from animals. But a broader, more multispecies-oriented vision is also possible. One in which the interdependence between humans, animals and ecological processes forms the starting point for health policy. I base my dissertation on this holistic approach of One Health. In my view this broader perspective is necessary. Not only to confront the increasing risk of pandemics and antibiotic resistance but also because it would do more justice to the complex reality. One Healthconnects public health to broader issues: do we, in our policies, pay enough consideration to our ecological context and the countless interactions that we humans have with other animals? This broader perspective comes with a host of philosophical considerations: who do we have in mind when we speak of public health? Does this concern only humans or animals as well? And are humans entitled to claim such a privileged position when it comes to a just health policy?

Frolicking

Moral rights may have an individualizing effect, in which case they’re overly focused on self-interest: I have the right to this and that, and nobody can infringe on it. I think it would be better to interpret moral rights as a tool to acknowledge the needs and interests of others. They remind us that the basic interests of others are in fact not that different from our own. In that sense, rights can help us to be less focused on our self-interest, but rather act more selfless. What’s more, we would hardly need rights if we could realize the moral ideal of acting pretty much selflessly.

I’m looking at the prevalent ideas on the moral right to health in the same way. You can view this right as an acknowledgement of health interests, both your own and those of others. Health is important for various reasons: it often overlaps with an absence of suffering and allows you to engage in worthwhile activities.

“Studying great apes challenges us to think about our own animalism.”

These interests are also relevant to other sentient beings. In that case the question is: why should we withhold animals the right to health? Can we do this because animals don’t possess the same ability to reflect as humans do? This ability is tremendously important. Think for instance about the freedom of choice of human patients when it comes to medical procedures such as chemotherapy or vaccination.

However, the fact that animals don’t seem to be able to reflect on such a decision, does not in the least dismiss the value health has for their life. Like for humans, health enables a lot that is of value. Think about dogs, frolicking on the beach, a cow feeding her calf, or a pig rooting in the rich soil. To enable all of this it is necessary to safeguard their health.

When we regard rights as a tool to acknowledge, protect and promote the interests of other people as much as possible, we have to take the interests of animals seriously as well.

Caring cows