A good beginning
| Published date | 21 March 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-01-2016-0005 |
| Pages | 19-24 |
| Date | 21 March 2016 |
| Author | Sue Gerhardt |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Public mental health |
A good beginning
Sue Gerhardt
Sue Gerhardt is a
Psychotherapist and Author
based in the Oxfordshire, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the physiological systems –the foundation of physical
and mental health –that are being established during gestation and early infancy, when babies are also highly
vulnerable to stress.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper provides a brief overview of some of these processes.
Findings –The author argues that despite the wealth of research affirming the special significance of
pregnancy, babyhood and toddlerhood in human development, the predominant political and cultural
institutions go on failing to protect new parents and their relationships with their infants. The current policies
and practices are short-sighted.
Originality/value –The author shows that there is a failure to recognise the significance of good emotional
regulation –learnt in secure early relationships –to a thriving society.
Keywords Mental health, Perinatal, Postnatal, Early infancy, Vulnerable to stress
Paper type Viewpoint
Why focus on the perinatal and post-natal periods?
One of the most significant social changes of the last 50 years has been the expansion
of women’s participation in the workplace. As a feminist of 1970s vintage, you might
expect me to cheer this development. However, I have become aware over the last few
decades that the positive goal of redressing inequality and unfairness to women has
had unintended negative consequences for the youngest children. It has encouraged
many parents to acce pt the need to use commercial childcar e at ever earlier ages. Particularl y
when this takes the form of group care, this can mean less personal, one-to-one
care for babies.
The current political consensus is that this is necessary and desirable to enable the maximum
economic participation of women. Such views are becoming entrenched in our culture and ever
harder to challenge. Debate about the issue is almost entirely framed in economic terms
and is rarely informed by developmental knowledge of the needs of the child at different stages.
Policy makers, parents and the media routinely fail to distinguish between the perinatal and
toddler period and “early childhood”.
Yet an increasing wealth of research has made it clear that pregnancy, babyhood
and toddlerhood, ha ve a special signific ance in human life. The s cientific consensu s is that
this is a key developmental period when various crucial physiological systems are
establishing themselves. However, they donotdevelopinanautomatic,hard-wired
fashion but are high ly labile and respons ive to their environ ment. As new work in
epigenetics has made clear, they are strongly influenced both by the quality of early care
and by nutrition, with lasting effects on the child’s phenotype. Disappointingly, our debates on
early childcare often fail to reflect these facts or to enquire how we might best meet the needs
of infancy.
Received 22 January 2016
Revised 22 January 2016
Accepted 23 January 2016
DOI 10.1108/JPMH-01-2016-0005 VOL. 15 NO. 1 2016, pp. 19-24, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-5729
j
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC MENTALHEALTH
j
PAG E 19
To continue reading
Request your trial