Stamping Out Animal Culling: From Anthropocentrism to One Health Ethics.

IF 2.2 4区 哲学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-29 DOI:10.1007/s10806-021-09868-x
Zohar Lederman, Manuel Magalhães-Sant'Ana, Teck Chuan Voo
{"title":"Stamping Out Animal Culling: From Anthropocentrism to One Health Ethics.","authors":"Zohar Lederman, Manuel Magalhães-Sant'Ana, Teck Chuan Voo","doi":"10.1007/s10806-021-09868-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Culling is used in traditional public health policies to control animal populations. These policies aim primarily to protect human interests but often fail to provide scientific evidence of effectiveness. In this article, we defend the need to move from a strictly anthropocentric approach to disease control towards a One Health ethics, using culling practices as an example. We focus on the recent badger culls in the UK, claiming that, based on data provided by the English Government, these culls may be unjustified, all thing considered. We highlight the relevance of ethical reasoning rooted in One Health for this discussion, and make several suggestions including a moratorium on culling until data are provided to support the effectiveness of culling; to conduct a randomized trial to compare proactive culling with alternative methods; to apply deliberative democratic methods to assess public opinion towards the culls, and to find in Brexit an opportunity for aiming for more effective control measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403469/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09868-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Culling is used in traditional public health policies to control animal populations. These policies aim primarily to protect human interests but often fail to provide scientific evidence of effectiveness. In this article, we defend the need to move from a strictly anthropocentric approach to disease control towards a One Health ethics, using culling practices as an example. We focus on the recent badger culls in the UK, claiming that, based on data provided by the English Government, these culls may be unjustified, all thing considered. We highlight the relevance of ethical reasoning rooted in One Health for this discussion, and make several suggestions including a moratorium on culling until data are provided to support the effectiveness of culling; to conduct a randomized trial to compare proactive culling with alternative methods; to apply deliberative democratic methods to assess public opinion towards the culls, and to find in Brexit an opportunity for aiming for more effective control measures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
杜绝捕杀动物:从人类中心主义到统一健康伦理。
在传统的公共卫生政策中,扑杀被用来控制动物数量。这些政策的主要目的是保护人类利益,但往往无法提供有效的科学证据。在本文中,我们将以扑杀实践为例,为从严格的人类中心主义疾病控制方法转向 "同一健康 "伦理的必要性进行辩护。我们重点讨论了英国最近的捕杀獾事件,声称根据英国政府提供的数据,从各方面考虑,捕杀獾都是不合理的。我们强调了植根于 "一体健康 "的伦理推理与这一讨论的相关性,并提出了几项建议,包括在提供数据支持扑杀的有效性之前暂停扑杀;进行随机试验,比较主动扑杀和其他方法;应用协商民主方法评估公众对扑杀的意见,以及在英国脱欧中寻找机会,争取采取更有效的控制措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food.
期刊最新文献
Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe A Kantian Approach to the Moral Considerability of Non-human Nature Right to Food Politically Branding India’s “First Fully Organic State”: Re-Signification of Traditional Practices and Markets in Organic Agriculture Strategies for Increasing Participation of Diverse Consumers in a Community Seafood Program
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1