• français
    • English
  • English 
    • français
    • English
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
BIRD Home

Browse

This CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsJournals BIRDResearch centres & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Veterinarian ‘responsibility’: conflicts of definition and appropriation surrounding the public problem of antimicrobial resistance in France

Thumbnail
Date
2019
Alternative titles
La «responsabilité» du vétérinaire: conflits de définition et d'appropriation autour du problème public de la résistance aux antimicrobiens en France
Link to item file
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0273-2
Dewey
Administration
Sujet
antimicrobial resistance
Journal issue
Palgrave Communications
Volume
5
Publication date
2019
Article pages
n°67
Publisher
Palgrave
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0273-2
URI
https://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/20512
Collections
  • IRISSO : Publications
Metadata
Show full item record
Author
Fortané, Nicolas
184082 Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Sciences Sociales [IRISSO]
Type
Article accepté pour publication ou publié
Abstract (EN)
Over the past decade, veterinarians have been accused of being largelyresponsible for the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming. Building on Gusfield’s theoretical perspective, I analyse how AMR can be conceived as a public problem and show howthe French veterinary profession has been able to reframe it in such a way that veterinariansare no longer perceived as a threat but instead as protectors of public health. Based oninterviews with political stakeholders and veterinary practitioners, as well as on a survey ofthe veterinary press, this article interprets the controversies that structure the AMR problemas conflicts of definition and appropriation with regard to the legitimate uses of antibiotics.Veterinarians have had to make significant compromises in order to reframe their responsibility and not lose control over the prescription and sale of antibiotics. This dynamic is theresult of a three-stage process: firstly, veterinarian responsibility was conceived as a form ofownership where their authority to define the legitimate use of antibiotics was not contested;secondly, it was deemed to be a form of guilt whereby they were dispossessed of theirlegitimacy and capacity to act; thirdly, it was framed as a form of accountability where theywere able to demonstrate their role as public health guardians. During this most recent stage- which corresponds to the present framework of the AMR problem - veterinarians have hadto accept that the control and definition of legitimate uses of antibiotics needs to be distributed among a wider range of actors than was the case in the past.

  • Accueil Bibliothèque
  • Site de l'Université Paris-Dauphine
  • Contact
SCD Paris Dauphine - Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny 75775 Paris Cedex 16

 Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 France (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license.