Antimicrobial Resistance, One Health Interventions and the Least Restrictive Alternative Principle

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Bioethics
• Environmental Science

Background:

• Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant threat to human, animal, and environmental health.
• One Health policy, integrating human, animal, and environmental sectors, is a key strategy for AMR containment.
• Ethical considerations, particularly the least restrictive alternative principle, are debated in the context of One Health AMR policies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze and refute the assumptions underlying the argument that One Health policies for AMR require special ethical justification due to the least restrictive alternative principle.
• To provide a stronger ethical foundation for the implementation of One Health strategies against antimicrobial resistance.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of ethical arguments concerning One Health policies and AMR.
• Deconstruction of the assumptions related to the restrictiveness of One Health policies.
• Examination of the normative weight of the least restrictive alternative principle in policy-making.

Main Results:

• The study rejects the assumption that One Health policies are inherently more restrictive than alternative approaches.
• It also challenges the notion that the least restrictive alternative principle holds special, overriding normative importance.
• These rejections facilitate a more straightforward ethical justification for One Health policies in AMR control.

Conclusions:

• One Health policies are ethically viable and effective for addressing antimicrobial resistance.
• The perceived restrictiveness of One Health approaches does not preclude their ethical justification.
• A nuanced understanding of ethical principles supports the broader application of One Health strategies for global health security.