Abstract
Perhaps it was unintentional, but this editorial raises some potentially unacceptable policies. Those of us committed to a life course approach to improving the health of populations would share the concerns of Currey et al. 1 about the early antecedents of later mortality and morbidity. However, we would firmly disagree with their strategy.
Protection of young women (and young men) from the environmental threats described by the authors should be universal and not dependent on being pregnant. Such a strategy would assure protection of the fetus while improving the health of a far larger group and affecting future pregnancies. Elevating the value of the fetus above that of the mother has untoward consequences, as we on this side of the Atlantic well know.
Such approaches permit, even encourage, abusive treatment of pregnant women and abrogation of their human rights in the name of protecting the ‘unborn child’. Their language dovetailing with that routinely used by our ‘pro-life (read anti-abortion)’ advocates is chilling. Is the death of a young Bangladeshi woman more tragic because she was pregnant than all the other deaths of young women in the factory fires? Being pregnant should not determine access to appropriate public health interventions.