PDA

View Full Version : U.S. newborn survival rate ranks low




ArlyShellandKai
05-09-2006, 07:02 AM
Anyone surprised since babies are fully annoculated, lowest rate of Homebirths, highest rate of induced labors and csects...hmmmm
Michele
__________________________________

U.S. newborn survival rate ranks low

By LINDSEY TANNER
AP Medical Writer

AP Photo
Other News Video
Advertisement


CHICAGO (AP) -- America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.

Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.

"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.

The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.


"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Save the Children report, released Monday, comes just a week after publication of another report humbling to the American health care system. That study showed that white, middle-aged Americans are far less healthy than their peers in England, despite U.S. health care spending that is double that in England.

In the analysis of global infant mortality, Japan had the lowest newborn death rate, 1.8 per 1,000 and four countries tied for second place with 2 per 1,000 - the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland and Norway.

Still, it's the impoverished nations that feel the full brunt of infant mortality, since they account for 99 percent of the 4 million annual deaths of babies in their first month. Only about 16,000 of those are in the United States, according to Save the Children.
Buy AP Photo Reprints

The highest rates globally were in Africa and South Asia. With a newborn death rate of 65 out of 1,000 live births, Liberia ranked the worst.

In the United States, researchers noted that the population is more racially and economically diverse than many other industrialized countries, making it more challenging to provide culturally appropriate health care.

About half a million U.S. babies are born prematurely each year, data show. African-American babies are twice as likely as white infants to be premature, to have a low birth weight, and to die at birth, according to Save the Children.

The researchers also said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves likely contribute to the poor U.S. rankings. Those factors can lead to poor health care before and during pregnancy, increasing risks for premature births and low birth weight, which are the leading causes of newborn death in industrialized countries. Infections are the main culprit in developing nations, the report said.

Other possible factors in the U.S. include teen pregnancies and obesity rates, which both disproportionately affect African-American women and also increase risk for premature births and low birth weights.

In past reports by Save the Children - released ahead of Mother's Day - U.S. mothers' well-being has consistently ranked far ahead of those in developing countries but poorly among industrialized nations. This year the United States tied for last place with the United Kingdom on indicators including mortality risks and contraception use.

While the gaps for infants and mothers contrast sharply with the nation's image as a world leader, Emory University health policy expert Kenneth Thorpe said the numbers are not surprising.

"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well," Thorpe said. "What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases."

---




pumpkinsmama
05-09-2006, 07:22 AM
:lol I just posted on this in Birth and Beyond and News and Current events. Crazy isn't it!?

Just a caution, you may want to limit your quote a little so as not to infringe on copyright issues :thumb

kerikadi
05-09-2006, 09:34 AM
Not surprised at all - I think the US is going to have to hit rock bottom before changes are made and unfortunately, this isn't rock bottom enough :(

Keri

Ahappymel
05-09-2006, 01:05 PM
Would you be willing to post a link? Thanks!

StacyL
05-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060509/ap_on_he_me/infant_mortality_5

Of course, this would be because the vast majority of births i the U.S. occur in hospitals in the presence of OB/GYN's and all of the various interventions such as inductions, vaccuum extractions, C-sections, etc. etc. etc.

phoebemommy
05-09-2006, 03:52 PM
It's so interesting to me that they insist on attributing the problem to racial and economic disparities. That could certainly play some role, but god forbid they admit that the current system of wonderful technology and drugs needs a thorough audit.

Lucy VanPelt
05-09-2006, 06:07 PM
It's so interesting to me that they insist on attributing the problem to racial and economic disparities. That could certainly play some role, but god forbid they admit that the current system of wonderful technology and drugs needs a thorough audit.

My thoughts EXACTLY. Frickin' racist, classist society.

freebirth2
05-09-2006, 06:59 PM
I'am not surprised Hospital births are dangerous Homebirths are safe, either unassisted or assisted. I would encourage every women to have a Homebirth.

Mrs_Hos
05-09-2006, 07:49 PM
:yeah:

Yes...Homebirth is safe AMERICA!
:)

jennkraig
05-09-2006, 09:48 PM
another reason for the low (comparatively) survival rates could be that we have lots of women having higher order multiples (fertility drugs), and lot of women who are high risk are able to have babies now because of all the technology we have. Perhaps in the past a baby would simply have been miscarried that now is able to survive the pregnancy only to not make it after birth. we try to save babies at like 22 weeks now. I'm not sticking up for Drs here, just making an observation.

isaiahsmommy05
05-10-2006, 02:56 AM
another reason for the low (comparatively) survival rates could be that we have lots of women having higher order multiples (fertility drugs), and lot of women who are high risk are able to have babies now because of all the technology we have. Perhaps in the past a baby would simply have been miscarried that now is able to survive the pregnancy only to not make it after birth. we try to save babies at like 22 weeks now. I'm not sticking up for Drs here, just making an observation.

I'm thankful for all of the technology we have or I wouldn't have my beautiful daughter.

kerikadi
05-10-2006, 08:35 AM
another reason for the low (comparatively) survival rates could be that we have lots of women having higher order multiples (fertility drugs), and lot of women who are high risk are able to have babies now because of all the technology we have. Perhaps in the past a baby would simply have been miscarried that now is able to survive the pregnancy only to not make it after birth. we try to save babies at like 22 weeks now. I'm not sticking up for Drs here, just making an observation.

Other countries with this same technology have LOWER infant death rates.
THEY want to blame it on race, economics, multiples, drug users etc....
The TRUTH is that other counties have these SAME issues and yet LOWER infant mortality.

Keri

HomeBirthMommy
05-10-2006, 09:21 AM
"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.

"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well," Thorpe said. "What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases."
---

Do they not get it that they're over"caring"? Sheesh, of course give extra care to the true high risk pregnancies, but let the rest of us just have a normal pregnancy like we're make to do? Duh! That's what midwives are for :thumb .

Yulia_R
05-10-2006, 11:04 AM
No wonder! Cribs, nursery rooms, CIO and formula is just what a baby needs :irked: :irked: :irked:!

StacyL
05-10-2006, 11:43 PM
It's absurd that the "problem" is blamed on low-income/racial births, because all of those combined would make up only a small percentage of the total. Even if you took those births out of the stats the US would still be near the bottom. So they say what we need is MORE women having access to hospital care. Yeah, right. What we need are more midwife attended births, and leave the OB's to the rare, but true emergencies.