In support of the overuse of sustainability.

M erriam-Webster defines sustainability as, ‘‘of, relating to, orbeing a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged’’ (MerriamWebster Online, 2009). A resource, according to the same source, is ‘‘a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life.’’ Sustainability, then, is about more than mere existence. Rather, it is about maintaining a high quality of life for current and future generations, which (a) involves biological and behavioral components, (b) limits waste, and (c) exerts little strain on environmental, economic, or other resources, especially nonrenewable ones. Given this definition, it is interesting to note that public, scientific, and policy-oriented discussions about sustainability have rarely included the topics of health or health care. I would argue that this omission is due to the fact that health is generally not viewed as a resource. Unlike with water or energy, we cannot see health drying up in lakes or riverbeds or being depleted from deep within the ground or beneath the ocean’s surface. If, however, we agree with the World Commission on Environment and Development’s declaration that ‘‘People are the ultimate resource’’ (1987, p. 95), then it follows that health should be prominent during discussions about sustainability. As the occupational health literature has consistently shown, unhealthy people are not productive. Furthermore, health is a prerequisite for people to think creatively about and develop solutions to complex problems (e.g., the diminishing water supply or the development of renewable energy). Finally, just like accessible water or energy, accessible health care improves quality of life. In fact, the failure to see health as a valuable resource may, in part, explain why such disparities in access to health care exist in the United States and why employers do not always offer health insurance for all employees and will reduce or remove health benefits during a recession (Oxford Analytica, 2008). In each issue of Biological Research for Nursing, the reader can easily find articles addressing health problems that affect quality of life. In this issue, for instance, Carlson, Neelon, Carlson, Hartman, and Dogra describe their findings from a study addressing stroke in the elderly. These findings may help to lay a foundation for early intervention in a subgroup of elderly at high risk for stroke, a condition that can severely affect quality of life. In addition, the article by Chae and Covington on long-term behavioral outcomes associated with prenatal cocaine exposure in animals raises the possibility that prenatal cocaine exposure in humans may lead to long-term quality of life issues and highlights the need for further research in humans. Discussions about linkages between health and quality of life are familiar to most nurse authors and researchers, and such associations are often made explicit in an article’s introduction or discussion section or in a grant application as justification for a study. However, these linkages are rarely articulated in connection with the word sustainability even though the authors are actually directly addressing this concept. The omission of sustainability may seem insignificant because the discussion about quality of life is still taking place, but its exclusion from nursing literature contributes to the exclusion of the discipline of nursing, and more importantly, the topics of health and health care, from the broader sustainability movement. Yet, if people really are the ‘‘ultimate resource,’’ then health needs to be a conspicuous part of scientific and public discourse on sustainability. Nurse researchers and authors can take a valuable first step in increasing the visibility of health in the sustainability movement by using the word sustainability in studies, publications, and presentations whenever From the UNLV, School of Nursing, School of Allied Health Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada.