This article develops a critical review of how geography and cognate social sciences have engaged with health as a ‘multispecies’ or ‘more-than-human’ phenomenon in the context of nonhuman animals. We find that these literatures have employed some key ontological and epistemological innovations to address the human-centredness of dominant health approaches, including those, such as Planetary Health, that strive to integrate human, animal, and ecological health. In doing so, they have been successful in advancing fuller understandings of the multispecies dimensions of health. However, our analysis suggests that they have had limited results in rethinking health in ways that are equitable across species. Building on this review, the article draws on multispecies justice scholarship to identify three conceptual avenues that offer promise in terms of generating anti-anthropocentric accounts of multispecies health: in-difference, intersubjectively affirmed agency, and re-animalisation. Attentive to how animal health and ill-health are deeply embedded within human systems, we conclude by examining how these three approaches might provide us with the necessary ‘reflective’ tools for more equitable accounts of multispecies health.
Rubio-Ramon et al. (Wed,) studied this question.