Letter Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2014, Vol. 107(9) 338 DOI: 10.1177/0141076814546993
To submit a letter in response to a JRSM article, please visit http://jrsm.sagepub.com to find the article concerned, then click on the ‘Submit a comment’ link found in the Reader Responses section. Comments will automatically be submitted for consideration to be published in print.
Intergenerational equity for ‘future generations’ Our editorial’s1 opening emphasis was on disadvantaged groups in disadvantaged (at-risk) areas of the globe, (where) the first nine months of life are especially vulnerable. We welcome the response’s2 concerns about the early antecedents of later mortality and morbidity. The global response to disasters should be aware of those ‘early antecedents’. This re-emphasises the longterm impacts3 of risks affecting pregnancy outcomes. Our editorial sought to ensure universal inclusion of those invisible and presently excluded antecedents – the unborn – in the post 2015 framework for international development. This accords fully with ‘sustainable development’ – the UNGA resolution 42/ 187 – the report of Gro Harlem Brundtland’s World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, viz:
presently excluded group within that universal strategy for the post-2015 framework. It emphasises the ‘mother-baby dyad’ during pregnancy and notes ‘the stress of a mother’s deprivation’. The response, distracted by the red herring fallacy of uncited sectarian crusades, first paints and then sees the Fata Morgana mirage of the ‘elevati(on of) the value of the fetus above that of the mother’. ‘As climate change will have a substantial impact on the health and survival of the next generation among already challenged populations’,7 we exhort the respondent to renounce sectarian ideologies and include the logical responsibility for foetal health, particularly among the disadvantaged in disasterprone areas of poor countries. Declarations Competing interests: None declared
References Believing that sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, should become a central guiding principle of the United Nations, Governments and private institutions, organizations and enterprises.4
Brundtland’s call for intergenerational equity for present and ‘future generations’ should include both the mother and the unborn child, who both have needs: dietary, water and harmony, as well as freedom from: violence, anxiety, antigens and toxins. The combined needs of the mother and the unborn child may increasingly conflict5 amidst competition for scarce resources in contexts prone to climate, environmental, economical and socio-political change. The anthropologist writing the ‘Letter from an unborn child’ has courageously continued to champion the universal public health of all workers (and their families) tragically killed in the Bangladesh factory fires.6 The response2 should neither put words in our mouths nor misquotations in our strategy. The strategy cited in the editorial is the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. The editorial seeks inclusion for a vulnerable and
1. Currey B, Stoll B and Chastonay P. Reducing risks to the unborn child. Editorial. J R Soc Med 2013; 106: 428–430. 2. McCormick MC. Response to ‘Reducing risks to the unborn child’. J R Soc Med 2014; 107: 178. 3. World Health Organization. Promoting Optimal Fetal Development. Report of a Technical Consultation. Nutrition for Health and Development/Making Pregnancy Safer/Evidence and Information for Policy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2006. 4. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 42/187 (42nd session, Agenda item 82e). New York: United Nations, 1987. 5. Haig D. Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. Q Rev Biol 1993; 68: 495–532. 6. New Age. One Year After Rana Plaza Tragedy II: Victims Doubt If Justice Would be Done, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 22 April 2014. 7. Rylander C, Odland JO and Sandanger TM. Climate change and the potential effects on maternal and pregnancy outcomes: an assessment of the most vulnerable the mother, fetus, and newborn child. Glob Health Action 2013; 6: 19538.
Bruce Currey, Beat Stoll and Philippe Chastonay Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva CH-1211, Switzerland Email: [email protected]
! The Royal Society of Medicine 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on March 12, 2015
To submit a letter in response to a JRSM article, please visit http://jrsm.sagepub.com to find the article concerned, then click on the ‘Submit a comment’ link found in the Reader Responses section. Comments will automatically be submitted for consideration to be published in print.
Intergenerational equity for ‘future generations’ Our editorial’s1 opening emphasis was on disadvantaged groups in disadvantaged (at-risk) areas of the globe, (where) the first nine months of life are especially vulnerable. We welcome the response’s2 concerns about the early antecedents of later mortality and morbidity. The global response to disasters should be aware of those ‘early antecedents’. This re-emphasises the longterm impacts3 of risks affecting pregnancy outcomes. Our editorial sought to ensure universal inclusion of those invisible and presently excluded antecedents – the unborn – in the post 2015 framework for international development. This accords fully with ‘sustainable development’ – the UNGA resolution 42/ 187 – the report of Gro Harlem Brundtland’s World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, viz:
presently excluded group within that universal strategy for the post-2015 framework. It emphasises the ‘mother-baby dyad’ during pregnancy and notes ‘the stress of a mother’s deprivation’. The response, distracted by the red herring fallacy of uncited sectarian crusades, first paints and then sees the Fata Morgana mirage of the ‘elevati(on of) the value of the fetus above that of the mother’. ‘As climate change will have a substantial impact on the health and survival of the next generation among already challenged populations’,7 we exhort the respondent to renounce sectarian ideologies and include the logical responsibility for foetal health, particularly among the disadvantaged in disasterprone areas of poor countries. Declarations Competing interests: None declared
References Believing that sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, should become a central guiding principle of the United Nations, Governments and private institutions, organizations and enterprises.4
Brundtland’s call for intergenerational equity for present and ‘future generations’ should include both the mother and the unborn child, who both have needs: dietary, water and harmony, as well as freedom from: violence, anxiety, antigens and toxins. The combined needs of the mother and the unborn child may increasingly conflict5 amidst competition for scarce resources in contexts prone to climate, environmental, economical and socio-political change. The anthropologist writing the ‘Letter from an unborn child’ has courageously continued to champion the universal public health of all workers (and their families) tragically killed in the Bangladesh factory fires.6 The response2 should neither put words in our mouths nor misquotations in our strategy. The strategy cited in the editorial is the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. The editorial seeks inclusion for a vulnerable and
1. Currey B, Stoll B and Chastonay P. Reducing risks to the unborn child. Editorial. J R Soc Med 2013; 106: 428–430. 2. McCormick MC. Response to ‘Reducing risks to the unborn child’. J R Soc Med 2014; 107: 178. 3. World Health Organization. Promoting Optimal Fetal Development. Report of a Technical Consultation. Nutrition for Health and Development/Making Pregnancy Safer/Evidence and Information for Policy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2006. 4. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 42/187 (42nd session, Agenda item 82e). New York: United Nations, 1987. 5. Haig D. Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. Q Rev Biol 1993; 68: 495–532. 6. New Age. One Year After Rana Plaza Tragedy II: Victims Doubt If Justice Would be Done, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 22 April 2014. 7. Rylander C, Odland JO and Sandanger TM. Climate change and the potential effects on maternal and pregnancy outcomes: an assessment of the most vulnerable the mother, fetus, and newborn child. Glob Health Action 2013; 6: 19538.
Bruce Currey, Beat Stoll and Philippe Chastonay Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva CH-1211, Switzerland Email: [email protected]
! The Royal Society of Medicine 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on March 12, 2015
