August 7, 2014
Corresponding author: Michael K Skinner skinner@wsu.edu
Center for Reproductive Biology, School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Environmental Health 2014, 13:62 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-62
Abstract
Although the environmentally harmful effects of widespread dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) use became well-known following Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), its human health effects have more recently become clearer. A ban on the use of DDT has been in place for over 30 years, but recently DDT has been used for malaria control in areas such as Africa. Recent work shows that DDT has transgenerational effects in progeny and generations never directly exposed to DDT. These effects have health implications for individuals who are not able to have any voice in the decision to use the pesticide. The transgenerational effects of DDT are considered in light of some widely accepted ethical principles. We argue that this reframes the decision to use DDT, requiring us to incorporate new considerations, and new kinds of decision making, into the deliberative process that determines its ongoing use. Ethical considerations for intergenerational environmental justice are presented that include concern and respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, and justice. Here, we offer a characterization of the kinds of ethical considerations that must be taken into account in any satisfactory decisions to use DDT.
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/13/1/62
image source: https://notendur.hi.is/thorstur/research/environment/ddt/index.htm
