CC BY
14
2
<
(0 IL
g LU
S
(D ^
(D S
a
«
H
(D
S
be seen as natural philosophers in a certain way, the clinical philosopher on the pediatric ward of a hospital would be a highly reasonable innovation. He or she would encourage the children to give their 'inner philosopher' full scope and would assist them caringly in orientating themselves in the world — especially under the preconditions of being ill.
The child as a philosopher
Basically all children in their capacity as newcomers to this world are disposed to orient themselves in the world. Admittedly, this is a task that essentially is never completed because humans, as existing creatures, are subject to permanent change, and the world is engaged in a constant transformation. Hence, not only children, but also grown-ups have to orient themselves in the world. It is beyond dispute that adults, in comparison with children, possess more experience with regard to this challenge. Therefore, adults are required to help children with their orientation in the world. Usually, children trust adults to do just that. More precisely, they believe that the grown-ups want to and can help them to find orientation in the world. The betrayal of this naive basic trust is catastrophic.
Philosophy is orientation in thinking and at the same time orientation in the world through thinking. From this perspective, doing philosophy is an essential task for survival. However, doing philosophy is also, as we can see watching children discover the world, a fundamental human need. To a certain extent, everyone is doing philosophy. Humans as creatures with the capacity for language principally also possess the capacity for doing philosophy. This alone, however, does not automatically make each human a philosopher. Philosophy in the advanced sense is a strict affair, which usually puts a strong emphasis on methodological as well as logical aspects. Philosophy can be practiced or trained. Now, if grownups practice philosophy with children, ideally both parties profit from the training because children are doing philosophy differently from adults. Adults possess greater
...AND CHILD HEALTH
experience in thinking, so that they can guide the children in the thought process.
By contrast, childlike thinking is more naive — innocent, as Nietzsche puts it. Infantile thinking distinguishes itself through a form of refreshing naivety, which adult thinking has lost in the course of years. This naivety can sometimes have an unmasking quality. Thinking does not blindly accept common truths. While adults are inclined to comfortably confine themselves in a shell of preestablished truths, children are not as quick to settle for common sense explanations. They especially do not accept explanations that are contrary to their worldly experience. Naively, children simply cling to what they have experienced or seen, no matter the parental assurance that, "actually," such and such is the case. By this means the persistent asking child is able to help the grown up philosopher to get to the bottom of things by hindering him or her to come up with immediate answers which prevent a deep illumination of the matter in question.
Those who do philosophy with children should ask what children have seen and what answers they have given to serious questions. Adults should not patronize children. It is absolutely essential in education "to give children responsibility in accord with their level of development — also for their thinking". Patronizing, however, even if it is based on a nurturing intention, is the death of child philosophers, whose central organ is imagination.
A philosophical education for children emphasizes responsibility. Philosophical education is an invitation to think for oneself in a twofold manner: on the one hand through the practice of thinking, the "capacity to use one sown intelligence", as Kant phrases it; and on the other hand through imparting a fundamental disposition of openness. Basically, everything can be questioned and put into different perspectives. To wonder in this context is not so much an expression of naivety, as it is the precondition of an incipient mode of thinking, which does not only operate logically, but also creatively.
178
In September, the focus of the ISSOP (International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health) annual meeting was the Sustainable Development Goals.
Developed by the UN to reply the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs are more comprehensive but also rather 'clunky' — in other words, long winded and difficult to summarise effectively.
Sustainable Development Goals (1/2016-12/2030) Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security, improved nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education,
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management
of water and sanitation for all Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive,
sustainable industrialization & foster innovation Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive,
safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas &
marine resources for sustainable development Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
There are three reasons for the change:
• The MDGs were set to complete in 2015
• Many targets have not been met hence need revision
• There were felt to be omissions so the new goals cover a wider range of determinants
The goals are intended to cover social, economic and environmental priorities and there is intended to be integration between the various goals — see https://sustainable-development.un.org/topics
Whilst there is much to praise in the new goals there are also a number of critical inconsistencies which I will review below.
Child health in the SDGs
Unlike the MDGs there is no single child health target in the SDGs. MDG 4 was clear cut — to reduce under fives mortality by 2/3 by 2015. Whilst there was a big reduction of UFM globally (from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013), in many low income countries (notably those in Africa) the target was far from being met. Also the target was limited and said little about nutrition, growth or development.
There are 17 sustainable development goals so room for much more detail.
In contrast the first three SDGs are more comprehensive —
Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Within Goal 3 there are nine targets, the following being those most relevant to children:
3.1 — By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
3.2 — By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births
3.6 — By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
3.7 — By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
3.8 — Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
There are also further targets for child health within other goals for example: 16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children
Violence against girls is covered in Goal 5 — 5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation
These targets are challenging and we in ISSOP are planning to take up the question of violence against children, which is so pervasive and yet so highly preventable. Perhaps this is something we could collaborate on with EPA?
Inconsistencies in the SDGs
There are however certain inconsistencies and anomalies within the SDGs.
Goal 10 is to reduce inequality within and among countries. These inequalities are severely detrimental to child health. Yet many commentators see the origin of the growing inequalities as being in large part due to the neo-liberal economic policies of Western governments, and the lobbying by big business to promote such policies. See for example http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-4-Woodward.pdf which is a paper by an eminent economist that challenges the way the SDGs approach poverty. Woodward points out in this thoughtful paper (entitled Incrementum ad Absurdum) that if reducing poverty has to rely simply on economic growth, then it will take 100 years to reach the poverty line of $1.25 a day. Only by seriously tackling inequality — meaning measures to curb the growth of wealth — can poverty be genuinely reduced.
The second inconsistency is in relation to climate change. Goal 13 is strong — 'Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts'. But this is not compatible with Goal 8: 'Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth' — since economic growth (unless defined very clearly as not requiring more scarce resources) will inevitably increase CO2 emissions.
So, let's work with the goals which are clearcut and necessary and question the assumptions underlying those relating to social determinants and growth.
Tony Waterston, International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health
<n
H
CO H
o
CN
o
o
se <
CL <
e
B
o
LU T S CL
S
s
q
LU
179
GUT MICROBIOTA FOR HEALTH (GMFH ) — E-BOOK
The Gut Microbiota for Health (GMfH) organisation, which forms part of the European Society of Neurogastro-enterology and Motility (ESNM), is a body which facilitates scientific debate on topics relating to gut microbiota. As well as running an experts exchange programme, the GMfH formed a joint scientific committee alongside the American Gastroenterology (AGA), ESNM, European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology (ESPGHAN), the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO), and the
European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) to run the 4th GMfH World Summit which was held this year in Barcelona (14-15 March).
International speakers and delegates from all fields of gut microbiota research such as doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists and biologists joined the summit, where a wide range of research was presented, covering topics such as obesity, breast feeding, bowel disease and liver cancer, amongst others. Many of the topics were of great inte-
