Read online: https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/11/15/medical-journals-call-for-nucl...
IPPNW announcement, extracts from the editorial and a comment from me below.
==
By IPPNW on November 15, 2026
Read the joint editorial, Critical Condition: What Are We Doing About Nuclear War?, here [ https://peaceandhealthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/critical-condi... ] and IPPNW’s press release here [ https://peaceandhealthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/final-press-re... ].
Over 100 medical and health journals, including The Lancet, The BMJ and the International Nursing Review, have issued a joint call to move rapidly to eliminate nuclear weapons. Leaders of the global health community warn that any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity, and they call for primary prevention by abolishing the weapons before they can be used.
The call comes as nuclear risk reaches levels unseen even during the Cold War. In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest in history, and the facts support this move. The nine nuclear-armed states spent a record US $119 billion on their arsenals in 2025, a 19% rise in a single year; New START, the last treaty limiting the US and Russian arsenals, expired in February 2026 with no replacement in the works; and implicit and explicit nuclear threats have become a recurring feature of today’s wars.
The call takes the form of an editorial co-authored by the editors of 12 leading medical and health journals, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and leaders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). It follows joint editorials on nuclear risk in 2023 and 2025. It is published this week ahead of the first Review Conference of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which meets at UN Headquarters in New York from 30 November to 4 December 2026.
“Humanity’s survival isin the hands of a few fallible decision-makers,” the editorial warns.
Citing the special responsibility of the health community, the editorial states, “Health professionals have a vital role to play in keeping a health focus in public discussions on nuclear risk. We need a verifiable, deadline-driven agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons. This is why it is essential that the health sector continues to demand that every country – including the nuclear armed states – should join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The flourishing, and even the survival, of the human species is at stake.”
The editorial is the first introducing a series of four total. The other three will cover:
New insights from psychology and neurology on nuclear risk and deterrence
The potential One Health consequences of nuclear war
The role of AI, other new technologies and information disorders (mis- and disinformation) on nuclear risk
According to Chris Zielinski, Past President of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and co-author of the editorial, “This is not merely a broad communications effort. There has never been anything remotely like it in the health sector – or in any other sector.”
“Nuclear war would be the end of human civilisation,” added Dr. Kati Juva, IPPNW Co-President and co-author of the editorial. “As health professionals, we have a duty to work for the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons, and push all governments to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
Read the joint editorial, Critical Condition: What Are We Doing About Nuclear War?, here. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/critical-condi...
==
EXTRACTS from the editorial
'Nuclear sabre-rattling has been heard in Russia and Ukraine, India and Pakistan, Iran, Israel and the United States, and intensified over much of the globe... The Doomsday Clock is inexorably approaching midnight... It would take very few bombs to kill billions directly, and then bring about abrupt global cooling in a nuclear winter that would kill billions more from ensuing famine...
In 2017, an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations adopted a global agreement to ban nuclear weapons, known officially as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)... as we approach the first TPNW review conference, to be held in New York at the end of the year, none of the nine nuclear weapons-armed states has signed or ratified the Treaty...
Insights from psychology and neuroscience suggest that decisions about nuclear weapons are not ‘rational’, as deterrence implies, but are likely to be shaped by mental shortcuts, statistical reasoning errors and slight changes in decision contexts... A future editorial will address evidence from neuroscience and cognitive and social psychology.'
'
COMMENT (NPW): Knowledge and understanding of the potential impact of nuclear conflict is, or should be, part of the information that people need, collectively, to protect their own health and the health of our species. And yet several studies have shown a lack of understanding among the general population. This is important because such understanding would create the political conditions for reducing the threat. At present, most of us are in a state of denial, or at best, disconnection with the issue. I look forward to the future editorial on social psychology to explore these issues and how to address them.
Congratulations to HIFA steering group member Chris Zielinski for his pivotal role in the above editorial.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org