A Tale of Two Medicines
Modern medicine is split along a deep, rarely questioned divide: one set of schools trains physicians to treat humans, while an entirely separate system trains doctors to treat non-human animals. This division seems so natural today that it often escapes scrutiny. Yet at its core lies a fundamental philosophical question: Why do we separate human animals from non-human animals when teaching medicine?
This isn’t just an issue of academic organization—it reflects and reinforces a worldview that sees humans as inherently separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. While historical reasons partly explain how we arrived at this dual system, it’s increasingly clear that maintaining such a rigid divide hampers progress in science, public health and ethics. A more unified model of medical education, one that begins with an integrated study of all animals and branches into specialties later, could better serve humans, animals and the planet.
The Historical Roots of Medical Separation
The origins of this split trace back to antiquity, but the divergence became pronounced in the 18th and 19th centuries with the formalization of medical and veterinary education in Europe. Human medicine developed in universities, closely linked with religious institutions, and heavily influenced by classical texts and theological ideas. Veterinary medicine, on the other hand, emerged largely from practical needs—livestock care, military cavalry units, and agricultural production.
While physicians studied Hippocrates and Galen in lecture halls, early veterinarians were often seen as skilled tradespeople or animal caretakers. Over time, as veterinary medicine gained academic legitimacy, the disciplines continued to evolve in parallel—but rarely in collaboration.
This division was, in part, a reflection of the deeply entrenched belief that humans were categorically different from and superior to other animals—a belief often reinforced by religious teachings.
In Judeo-Christian traditions, for example, humans are seen as having dominion over animals, a view that may have subtly (and sometimes overtly) contributed to the perception that human bodies were sacred and deserving of higher study, while animal bodies were utilitarian and existed to serve humans.
Science Says Otherwise: We Are Animals Too
Modern biology tells a very different story. Humans are animals—genetically and physiologically close to countless other species. For instance, humans share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, approximately 92% with pigs, and 90% with cats.
Yet, despite these clear biological overlaps, most medical students graduate without any formal training in the biology, physiology, or pathology of non-human animals. Conversely, veterinary students receive a broad comparative education across multiple species—ironically, with humans being the only species not included in their medical training.
These educational gaps contribute to a siloed understanding of disease. They limit interdisciplinary communication, slow the translation of discoveries across species and keep human health disconnected from the broader ecosystems in which it exists. One striking example is the condition known as capture cardiomyopathy, a form of sudden cardiac death observed in wild animals such as zebras, deer, or antelope. Triggered by extreme stress—often during capture or restraint—this condition has been recognized by veterinarians for decades.
Capture cardiomyopathy shares key physiological features with Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, more commonly known as “broken heart syndrome” in humans. In Takotsubo, intense emotional stress causes sudden weakening of the heart muscle, mimicking a heart attack. But while veterinarians had long documented this stress-induced cardiac collapse in animals, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy wasn’t formally described in human medicine until the 1990s.
Had human physicians been exposed to the veterinary literature or trained alongside veterinary counterparts, it’s likely this phenomenon could have been recognized much earlier in humans—potentially saving lives.
A New Vision for an Ancient Connection
While the interconnectedness of human and animal health has existed since the earliest human societies, the formal recognition of this relationship under the term “One Health” is relatively recent. The concept was first introduced in 1964 by Dr. Calvin Schwabe, a veterinarian and epidemiologist, who coined the term “One Medicine.” Schwabe argued that there should not be two separate medical systems—one for humans and one for animals—but rather a unified, comparative approach that recognizes the biological and ecological links across species.
Despite this visionary idea, it took decades for even the concept to gain traction. It wasn’t until 2007 that the American Medical Association (AMA) formally acknowledged the importance of collaboration between human and veterinary medicine, passing a resolution that promoted greater partnership between the two disciplines. This was a landmark moment, reflecting growing awareness of the global challenges—such as zoonotic diseases, environmental degradation, and antimicrobial resistance—
that transcend the boundaries of traditional medical fields.
Since then, the One Health framework has gained international attention, with organizations like the CDC, WHO, FAO, and OIE embracing its interdisciplinary approach. Still, implementation remains uneven, and education systems continue to reinforce outdated divisions by training human physicians and veterinarians in isolation from one another.
Toward a Unified Medical Education
Imagine a future where all students of medicine—regardless of whether they intend to treat humans, dogs, horses, or birds—begin their education together. They learn anatomy across species, study comparative physiology, pharmacology, animal behaviour and psychiatry, explore the evolution of disease and engage with public health from a planetary perspective. Only after this shared foundation do they branch into specialties and subspecialties. This approach could promote systems thinking, reveal cross-species patterns, and most importantly, nurture compassion for all sentient life—not just humans.
The Costs of Division
By maintaining a strict divide between human and animal medicine, we perpetuate the illusion of separation—not just between species, but between problems that are deeply interconnected. This fragmentation leads to missed opportunities in research and slower responses to health crises. Worse still, it upholds an anthropocentric worldview that justifies the exploitation and neglect of non-human animals and ecosystems. When we see health as something only humans deserve—we blind ourselves to root causes, shared suffering and ultimately, shared solutions.
A More Inclusive Science of Healing
Bringing together human and veterinary medicine under one academic umbrella wouldn’t erase specialization—it would deepen it. Students would graduate with a more holistic understanding of biology, a greater respect for life in all its forms, and a readiness to tackle 21st-century health challenges with nuance and compassion.
Religious or philosophical beliefs that elevated humans above animals may have laid the groundwork for the bifurcation of medicine, but science and ethics are pointing us in a different direction—toward integration, cooperation, and humility.
It’s time to acknowledge that the health of humans is not separate from the health of other animals or the environment. A unified medical education system—rooted in the principles of One Health—would be a powerful step toward healing those artificial divides.
