Abortion Debate Forum - U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World
Medical questions     Health forums     MarketPlace     log in    

U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World

New Topic  Reply  Ask A Doctor - Offline
Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World
Medical Questions
Author Message
Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World
Posted: 09-12-07 09:15am

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says
Research: 2 million babies die in first 24 hours each year worldwide

By Jeff Green
CNN

Wednesday, May 10, 2006; Posted: 12:02 p.m. EDT (16:02 GMT)


(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births.

Sub-Saharan Africa remains the worst place in the world to be a mother or child, with Scandinavian nations again taking the top spots in the rankings by the Connecticut-based humanitarian group.

Sweden heads the list, with Niger last. (10 worst and best)

The "Mothers' Index" in the report ranks 125 nations according to 10 gauges of well-being -- six for mothers and four for children -- including objective measures such as lifetime mortality risk for mothers and infant mortality rate and subjective measures such as the political status of women.

Charles MacCormack, president and CEO of Save the Children, said the report card "illustrates the direct line between the status of mothers and the status of their children."

"In countries where mothers do well, children do well," he said in a written statement accompanying the report.

But each year, according to the report, more than a half-million women die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth difficulties, 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours, 2 million more die within their first month and 3 million are stillborn.
An unhealthy start

As Americans celebrate Mother's Day on Sunday, "5,000 mothers will mourn the loss of the newborn they bear that very day in the developing world," said Anne Tinker, director of Save the Children's Saving Newborn Lives initiative.

"All children, no matter where they are born, deserve a healthy start in life," Melinda Gates wrote in a foreword to the report, which was funded in part by the foundation she runs with her husband, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

MacCormack said "significant progress" had been made in reducing deaths in children under age 5 in recent years, but "we have made little progress in reducing mortality rates for babies during the first month of life."

Causes of death in the developing world were dramatically different from those in the developed world, the report said. In industrialized nations deaths were most likely to result from babies being born too small or too early, while in the developing world about half of newborn deaths were from infection, tetanus and diarrhea.

The newborn mortality rate in the United States has fallen in recent decades, the report said, but continues to affect minorities disproportionately.

Only 17 percent of all U.S. births were to African-American families, but 33 percent of all low-birthweight babies were African-American, according to the report.

The research also found that poorer mothers with less education were at a significantly higher risk of early delivery. The study added that in general lower educational attainment was associated with higher newborn mortality.

Tinker said some nations ranked high in part because they offer free health services for pregnant women and babies, while the United States suffers from disparities in access to health care.

"We can do better here, but what's really important is that we do something" in the developing world, she said.

The report said almost all newborn and maternal deaths take place in developing nations -- 99 percent and 98 percent, respectively. The newborn mortality rates were particularly high in countries with a recent history of armed conflict, including Liberia and Sierra Leone.

But the report also concluded that political will was more important than national wealth. A "newborn scorecard" ranking 78 developing nations found that some relatively impoverished countries -- including Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua and Vietnam -- fare better than others.

Ranking at the bottom of the scorecard were Liberia, Afghanistan, Angola and Iraq -- countries where armed conflict and cultural practices impede newborn survival.

"It's tragic that millions of newborns die every year, especially when these deaths are so easily preventable," Gates wrote. "Three out of four newborn deaths could be avoided with simple, low-cost tools that already exist, such as antibiotics for pneumonia, sterile blades to cut umbilical cords and knit caps to keep babies warm."
'The good news'

The Mothers' Index -- which excluded some nations that lacked sufficient data -- highlights huge disparities between the nations at the top and the bottom of the list.

Compared with mothers in the top 10 countries, a mother in the bottom 10 was found to be more than 750 times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth.

In top-ranked Sweden, skilled personnel are present at nearly all births, but in bottom-ranked Niger, such help is available for only 16 percent of women in labor.

"The good news," said MacCormack, "is that we know what it takes to help these moms and children survive and thrive."

The report highlights the three areas it says have the most influence on child well-being: female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth and use of family planning services.

Educated women, the report said, are more likely to marry and give birth later in life, to seek health care and to encourage education for their children, including girls.

The report said that family planning and increased contraception use leads to lower maternal and infant death rates. Many women and children in developing nations, it said, die as a result of births that come at the wrong time -- too close together, too early or too late in the mother's life.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/par enting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html
|
Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1174
Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9

Posted: 09-12-07 15:08pm

so let me get this straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4 million more babies might not get born each year but are ok with 2.0 million dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million more within 30 days, after their birth. 3 million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7 million gestations and babies dead each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are looking the wrong direction in this fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are on?
|
Gu£st

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Posts: 767
Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-12-07 15:33pm

"so let me get this straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4 million more babies might not get born each year but are ok with 2.0 million dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million more within 30 days, after their birth. 3 million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7 million gestations and babies dead each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are looking the wrong direction in this fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are on?"

I want to see those babies live of course I do, and I support anyone who wants to try to help fund medical advancement in that area, but at least the doctors are trying to save their lives. Pro life's main concern is trying to prevent the purposeful killing of unborn children.
|
msrosie

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 362
Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-12-07 16:18pm

Jincks013 wrote:
so let me get this straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4 million more babies might not get born each year but are ok with 2.0 million dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million more within 30 days, after their birth. 3 million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7 million gestations and babies dead each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are looking the wrong direction in this fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are on?


In all fairness to the prolifers, those figures of 2+2+3 million are worldwide while there are about 46 million abortions worldwide each year (about 20 million of those are illegal ones - so much for the idea that making abortion illegal severely curtails it).

Two things in the article really stand out to me:

1. that the death rate of newborns is lowest in countries with universal health care

2. that making contraception more available and educating women lowers the infant death rate

Seems to me to be a no-brainer of what to do about it.
|
Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-12-07 16:58pm

ditto what msrosie said. It is a no-brainer. Too bad pro-life groups stand in the way.
|
Georgia59

Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5557
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32

Posted: 09-12-07 18:16pm

Honestly I think this has a lot more to do with the general availability of affordable, good health care.

Which would explain why less advantaged peoples would have higher infant mortality rates.
|
Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1174
Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9

Posted: 09-12-07 22:59pm

Gu£st wrote:
"so let me get this straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4 million more babies might not get born each year but are ok with 2.0 million dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million more within 30 days, after their birth. 3 million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7 million gestations and babies dead each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are looking the wrong direction in this fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are on?"

I want to see those babies live of course I do, and I support anyone who wants to try to help fund medical advancement in that area, but at least the doctors are trying to save their lives. Pro life's main concern is trying to prevent the purposeful killing of unborn children.


Thats almost interesting..
Now how about the real post birth babies dying? instead of hypothetical pregnancies taht might not be gestated..
You avoided the quesion..
Aren't you, if you really actually care about babies instead of just seeking a last ditch effort at controlling women, looking the wrong directiong?
My math could be flawed but I'd swear there was 5.6 million more real babies dying each year then pregnancies being aborted..

YOu are not Pro-Life.. you are Anti-Choice, Pro-Total-Woman-Control.
|
Cambion

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-13-07 02:01am

The higher infant mortality rate is probably from stupid people who undergo fertility treatments, conceive six or seven babies at once and then refuse to reduce. This results in babies being born very small, usually premature, and with a host of health problems. In fact, was there not a recent news story about a woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and four of the six sextuplets died? There are people who feel that life should trump quality of life and will birth babies with missing organs or life-threatening illnesses (and then go on the news and beg for donations because it's too haaaard to pay for medical bills).

I think other countries have a better grasp of the theory of survival of the fittest. If a child is born very ill (as in beyond healing), then it is allowed to pass peacefully and with dignity - it isn't kept alive by machines like a science experiement because the parents think their catholic god will save their child.
|
Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1174
Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9

Posted: 09-13-07 06:11am

Cambion wrote:
The higher infant mortality rate is probably from stupid people who undergo fertility treatments, conceive six or seven babies at once and then refuse to reduce. This results in babies being born very small, usually premature, and with a host of health problems. In fact, was there not a recent news story about a woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and four of the six sextuplets died? There are people who feel that life should trump quality of life and will birth babies with missing organs or life-threatening illnesses (and then go on the news and beg for donations because it's too haaaard to pay for medical bills).

I think other countries have a better grasp of the theory of survival of the fittest. If a child is born very ill (as in beyond healing), then it is allowed to pass peacefully and with dignity - it isn't kept alive by machines like a science experiement because the parents think their catholic god will save their child.


Is this personal opinion or did you have some facts to back up your assertion?
IVF might certainly contribute but I doubt it is the main cause. Would you care to post your research?
|
Georgia59

Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5557
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32

Posted: 09-13-07 12:03pm

Cambion wrote:
The higher infant mortality rate is probably from stupid people who undergo fertility treatments, conceive six or seven babies at once and then refuse to reduce. This results in babies being born very small, usually premature, and with a host of health problems. In fact, was there not a recent news story about a woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and four of the six sextuplets died? There are people who feel that life should trump quality of life and will birth babies with missing organs or life-threatening illnesses (and then go on the news and beg for donations because it's too haaaard to pay for medical bills).

I think other countries have a better grasp of the theory of survival of the fittest. If a child is born very ill (as in beyond healing), then it is allowed to pass peacefully and with dignity - it isn't kept alive by machines like a science experiement because the parents think their catholic god will save their child.



I totally don't buy that. People who have the money and resources for IVF and fertility treatments in general have the money and resources to get the best medical care to treat for their children.

Unless you have actual information, I don't believe a word of this post.
|
sillyakchick

Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-13-07 12:25pm

There has been an abundance of research that indicates that our soaring infant mortality rate is due, in part to the medicalizatioin of the birth process. too many interventions are being introduced. As indicated in the article from the OP, the main cause of infant mortality in the US is low birth weight and babies born too soon. There are several contributing factors to this, but two jump out at me

#1 Women are choosing elective C-section based on erroneous dates provided by their care provider. Due dates are only estimates, and many times women opt for this as early as possible to avoid stretch marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc

#2 Physicians are inducing women too early based on erroneus dates for their convenience and for minor complications.

Much of this information has been collected by my reading, specifically Ina May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the leading experts on childbirth.
|
Georgia59

Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5557
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32

Posted: 09-13-07 12:32pm

sillyakchick wrote:
There has been an abundance of research that indicates that our soaring infant mortality rate is due, in part to the medicalizatioin of the birth process. too many interventions are being introduced. As indicated in the article from the OP, the main cause of infant mortality in the US is low birth weight and babies born too soon. There are several contributing factors to this, but two jump out at me

#1 Women are choosing elective C-section based on erroneous dates provided by their care provider. Due dates are only estimates, and many times women opt for this as early as possible to avoid stretch marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc

#2 Physicians are inducing women too early based on erroneus dates for their convenience and for minor complications.

Much of this information has been collected by my reading, specifically Ina May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the leading experts on childbirth.


That's interesting....

while I still don't believe that that is the reason that infant mortality rates are so high in the US (given that the mortality rate is highest among disadvantaged groups) I can see how it would contribute. I guess. (She says reluctantly.)

I was actually thinking this morning of starting a debate about elective c-sections, that women choose out of convenience or because they want to avoid medical complications that arise later in life because of vaginal childbirth. (Like incontinence, for example)
|
sillyakchick

Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-13-07 15:02pm

Georgia59 wrote:
sillyakchick wrote:
There has been an abundance of research that indicates that our soaring infant mortality rate is due, in part to the medicalizatioin of the birth process. too many interventions are being introduced. As indicated in the article from the OP, the main cause of infant mortality in the US is low birth weight and babies born too soon. There are several contributing factors to this, but two jump out at me

#1 Women are choosing elective C-section based on erroneous dates provided by their care provider. Due dates are only estimates, and many times women opt for this as early as possible to avoid stretch marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc

#2 Physicians are inducing women too early based on erroneus dates for their convenience and for minor complications.

Much of this information has been collected by my reading, specifically Ina May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the leading experts on childbirth.


That's interesting....

while I still don't believe that that is the reason that infant mortality rates are so high in the US (given that the mortality rate is highest among disadvantaged groups) I can see how it would contribute. I guess. (She says reluctantly.)

I was actually thinking this morning of starting a debate about elective c-sections, that women choose out of convenience or because they want to avoid medical complications that arise later in life because of vaginal childbirth. (Like incontinence, for example)


There are many reasons. I am saying that this is a contributing factor and that it is a large contributing factor. Education and poverty are factors which have a relationship with the infant mortality rate. Some experts believe that this is because these women have not either the education which provides them with informatioin in regard to maternal and newborn interventions that have potential harm for the fetus, nor the notion that they can empower themselves and stand up for what THEY think is the correct way to proceed.

Poverty is also a driving factor. In the city whrere I live you have two groups that accept medicaid and the uninsured. Both of these ofices are quite busy and have a very heavy patient load. I have heard from many patients and staff that the physicians have to schedule inductions based on staffing issues and physician schedules due to them having so so many patients.

This might help to support the findings. It certainly can't be one reason, just a multitude of factors interplaying with one another.

Check out the statistics from "The Farm" a nurse midwifery place started by Ina May Gaskin in the 1970's in Tennesse. You will be surprised at some of their statistics there, and they see women of all financial backgrounds.

I like your idea about the elective c-section debate. that is a good topic.
|
Cambion

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-13-07 17:11pm

Quote:
Is this personal opinion or did you have some facts to back up your assertion?
IVF might certainly contribute but I doubt it is the main cause. Would you care to post your research?


No, this isn't a personal opinion - it is fact that IVF babies have a higher chance of being born deformed or otherwise unhealthy.

This is kind of old, but still a source:
http://www.newsc ientist.com/article/dn4675.html

Another more recent one (as of June 2007):
http://eth icist.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/hello-world /

This is from a few days ago:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007 /09/another_reason_2.html

For the hell of it, here's a source about a woman who died possibly from ivf:
http: //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articl e605202.ece

Quote:
I totally don't buy that. People who have the money and resources for IVF and fertility treatments in general have the money and resources to get the best medical care to treat for their children.

Unless you have actual information, I don't believe a word of this post.


Yes, but the thing is most people who undergo ivf don't have the money to do so - they rely on insurance to cover most or all of it, or they take out ivf loans (yes, these do exist). Hell, I even have read about people who were selling their house to rent a small apartment in order to afford IVF, or taking out a second mortgage on their homes to afford the treatment. The funniest part is ivf is only about 20 percent effective, so in general this is a completely idiotic investment (would you voluntarily buy anything that had an 80 percent failure rate??)

Here's proof that most people can't actually afford ivf on their own:
http://www.nobabyonboa rd.com/options.html

Loan sites, and other ivf financial aid sites are listed there. I know ivf runs upwards of $10k, but if they can't afford that for conception, how in the world will they be able to afford raising the child (which is estimated to cost nearly $300,000 to raise a child from birth to the age of 18, discluding college costs)? The fact that so many sites exist that will shell out money for ivf is proof enough that most people cannot afford to have it done on their own incomes. And then there is always the chance of conceiving multiples, and most people will not reduce if there's four or five fetuses because 'it's god's will', and then they'll start blogs asking for donations because they can't afford to care for all these babies.

For the hell of it, again, here's sources that state there is an increased risk of birth defects among ivf babies:

http://www.uihealthcare.com/news/news/20 05/12/19birthdefects.html

http://www.li fesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120409.html

http://news.bbc.co .uk/2/hi/health/3420265.stm

Site that details the risks of having multiples via ivf:
http://www.ivf-infertili ty.com/ivf/standard/complications/multiple _pregnancy2.php

I know that third one says "The study does not prove that the IVF itself is causing the difference", but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many ivf babies have more health problems than babies conceived naturally. There's too much evidence to say otherwise.

Another potential rise in the infant mortality rate here could be a result of the 'free-birthing' trend of the past couple years. For those who don't know, free-birthing is a medically unassisted birth. Basically, women will give birth in their homes without a midwife or a doctor of any kind present, and no medication. The risk of death for the infant is much higher than if the mother gave birth under safer circumstances, as is the risk of death on the mother's part.
|
sillyakchick

Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-13-07 17:22pm

Cambion wrote:
[
Another potential rise in the infant mortality rate here could be a result of the 'free-birthing' trend of the past couple years. For those who don't know, free-birthing is a medically unassisted birth. Basically, women will give birth in their homes without a midwife or a doctor of any kind present, and no medication. The risk of death for the infant is much higher than if the mother gave birth under safer circumstances, as is the risk of death on the mother's part.


I am going to demand stats here because again you are making wild assertions without any evidence to back them up.

Since the mortality rate has lowered slightly in the last few years, I highly doubt that "the 'free-birthing' trend of the past couple years" has anything to do with it. Medication does not ensure a "safe" birth. Either stick to what you know about or do a little research before you post hysterical propaganda from the evening news.
|
HcoBrunette06

Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 8005
Location: Missouri, United States
Thanks: 2
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-13-07 17:38pm

Cambion wrote:
The higher infant mortality rate is probably from stupid people who undergo fertility treatments, conceive six or seven babies at once and then refuse to reduce. This results in babies being born very small, usually premature, and with a host of health problems. In fact, was there not a recent news story about a woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and four of the six sextuplets died? There are people who feel that life should trump quality of life and will birth babies with missing organs or life-threatening illnesses (and then go on the news and beg for donations because it's too haaaard to pay for medical bills).

I think other countries have a better grasp of the theory of survival of the fittest. If a child is born very ill (as in beyond healing), then it is allowed to pass peacefully and with dignity - it isn't kept alive by machines like a science experiement because the parents think their catholic god will save their child.


"stupid people who undergo fertility treatments"

what about people who can't conceive? What do you expect them to do? oh just sit around and accept that they can't have children? It's a little harder than that, but you wouldn't know.
|
Georgia59

Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5557
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32

Posted: 09-13-07 18:02pm

Cambion wrote:


Yes, but the thing is most people who undergo ivf don't have the money to do so - they rely on insurance to cover most or all of it, or they take out ivf loans (yes, these do exist). Hell, I even have read about people who were selling their house to rent a small apartment in order to afford IVF, or taking out a second mortgage on their homes to afford the treatment. The funniest part is ivf is only about 20 percent effective, so in general this is a completely idiotic investment (would you voluntarily buy anything that had an 80 percent failure rate??)


But the point was that they have the insurance that actually covers it (which only expensive, good insurance does) or that they have the credit and financial backing to be able to take out a loan. People who don't have insurance, or can't get loans, these are the people who are the most at risk for infant mortality because they have to go to low-cost low-income type health clinics and don't get the best (or ongoing, or preventative) medical care.

I'm not saying that IVF doesn't have risks, I just don't buy that it's the SOLE cause of infant mortality rates. I think blaming IVF is ignoring the real problem.
|
Cambion

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-13-07 18:45pm

You really like getting on my case, don't you? Maybe you should be taking care of your precious widdle angel rather than spending time on message boards, whining at people you don't know.

Also, I never said assisted birth didn't have its risks (way to put words in my mouth) - but there is a much higher risk of complications and death with unassisted birth (I laugh knowing I actually need to explain this). And since most news articles base their information on research, I would hardly call my cited sources 'propaganda'. Aside from all that, it's pretty much common sense that giving birth with no one around to help you is dangerous, for both the baby and the mother.

Unfortunately, there are not too many formal studies on the free-birthing movement (probably because so few women are that stupid). Then again, that's why I said this was a 'potential' cause, not a definite one. Maybe you could try - I don't know - actually reading what gets posted?

Anyway, of the few sources that didn't glorify home-births as being wonderful, natural, god's will and risk-free, this is what was found:

Article claiming "Infant mortality double in low-risk home births":
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0C YD/is_12_37/ai_87776262

Article that states risks to the mother and fetus in unassisted births:
http://links.j stor.org/sici?sici=0093-0334%28198512%2915 %3A6%3C19%3AHBAHII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size =LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Well, there are a couple of benefits to unassisted births...fewer innocent doctors getting sued when something goes wrong, and mother nature will weed out the babies too sick to live who would otherwise get stuck in nicu and kept alive on machines. Also, babies that die as the result of unassisted births who later get taken to the hospital will be recorded as hospital deaths, so this will skew any statistics out there on unassisted birth infant mortality.

Another possible cause of an increased infant death rate is low income - if parents cannot afford to get the kid medical care, the infant could contract a deadly disease/infection and may perish if it is left untreated.

And here's an article about it, for people who want to whine "dat b3 pr0pagandaz omfgzlolwtf!!11!":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m i_qn4155/is_20070424/ai_n19031434
|
HcoBrunette06

Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 8005
Location: Missouri, United States
Thanks: 2
Thanked:1

Posted: 09-13-07 18:53pm

I don't have a child, but thanks anyway. & thanks for blowing off my question and answering it with a stupid comment Laughing since you can't think of anything to say to it.

get over yourself and stop trying to make others feel bad for 1. having children, or 2. not being able to, and then calling them stupid for doing whatever they can to become parents. just because you don't want children doesn't mean other people don't.
|
Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0

Posted: 09-13-07 21:39pm

Basically, there are people on here who I ignore. Guest is often one of them, with Milletics up there and NightAngel only on the occasion where she brags about being homophobic. I also ignored lobaha/pcforme until she left. I think I will be adding Cambion to my list.
|
Related Topics
This Forum This Category All Forums
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
New Topic   Reply
Medical Questions -> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World



Page 1 of 2
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.