Infant mortality increase - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 01:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
lauraess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: creamery, pa
Posts: 4,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I looked at an article on comcast.net news yesterday reviewing finding from the CDC. The article showed the increase/rise in infant mortality rate , the last rise being 4 decades ago and then theres this question of why???? ponderings of mothers waiting more and more to have children later in life and using in vitro and such tech. and premature babies etc. I just found it to be an obvious sign that (duh) somethings not working in our oh-so-smart-society and maybe just maybe technology has gone too far.
try this site if interested:
www.comcast.net/news/HEALTH/WELLNESS//XML/1500
if this gets you only so far try doing a search for Infant Mortality.

Laura
lauraess is offline  
#2 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 01:40 AM
 
KKmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: out talking to the crocuses
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I saw that, too, and I wondered why the source I saw didn't break it down into socio-economic and/or racial groups... I know that generally poor women and women of color in the US get substandard perinatal care and have higher incidences of problems (including infant mortality). When I saw the overall number, I wondered if it's indication that these marginalized groups are getting shafted more than they usually do... (my big pet peeve is when they blame it on older mothers).
KKmama is offline  
#3 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 02:49 AM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I've read news articles that blame the rising c-sec rate on "older mothers." ("Older" meaning over 30.: )

I don't think women are to blame for this. Isn't the main cause prematurity? And isn't a big cause of prematurity elective induction based on the date the u/s machine spits out, even if the LMP date is much later? Induction at 38 weeks does not guarantee a good outcome. Some babies just need that extra time.

Another cause is infection. Infection could be lowered if certain interventions, such as AROM, cervical checks, internal monitors, and routine placement in the newborn nursery were abolished.
Greaseball is offline  
#4 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 04:23 AM
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I feel like the prenatal care women are offered today does very little to help those especially at risk. A six minute visit that checks blood pressure, weight, and urine cannot possibly improve outcomes.

There's a great book written by a second generation OB/GYN and third generation doc called "Expecting Trouble: The Myth of Prenatal Care in America" by Thomas Strong, MD. He is highly critical that all the testing and procedures that are done prenatally does not serve women well.

Definitely, asking these at risk women about their home life, their emotional well-being, their relationships, their nutrition, and their stress levels would be a plus. (He suggests that OB/GYNs stick to high-risk and surgical birth and leave normal healthy women to CNMs)

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that early prenatal care is being touted as a way to prevent preterm births, etc., when it's not even touching the real symptoms of high-risk births.
pamamidwife is offline  
#5 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 02:58 PM
 
TurboClaudia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in a yellow house
Posts: 7,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I strongly second Pam's recommendation of Thomas Strong's book Expecting Trouble (you beat me to it, Pam! ) It's been over a year since I last read it, but I remember many a-ha moments when reading about typical prenatal care in this country. I am always referring people to this book when they ask what people do in other countries "without technology" available to remind them that prenatal care is not why babies who are born pre-term can live well: perinatalogy and a few key discoveries (i.e. surfactant to help with maturing baby's lungs) are the reason. And actually, our perinatal mortality rate is NOT the lowest in the world, which you might expect if accessibility of technology were the real reason for increased viability.

warmly,
claudia
TurboClaudia is offline  
#6 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 03:23 PM
 
Evergreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where all the women are strong
Posts: 5,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Last night at work, I saw "Infant mortality rate increase due to mothers deleying childbirth" or something like that going across the ticker on one of the news programs. I flipped out and ranted about unnessicary cesereans, ultrasounds misreading fetal weight, pitocin, epidurals, interferance in normal labor to be greeted with rolled eyes and glazed over stares.

Today at LLL, though, I had complete support for my 'theory'.

Evergreen- Loving my girls Dylan dust.gifage8, Ava energy.gifage 4 and baby Georgia baby.gif (6/3/11).

Evergreen is offline  
#7 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 03:37 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Nowadays, in many areas mothers who have children in their 20s (even if they are married) are looked at with the same stigma as mothers who have children in their teens.

So either way someone is going to disapprove and tell you how dangerous it is.:
Greaseball is offline  
#8 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 06:42 PM
 
tinyshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis USA
Posts: 1,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh. I read that article in the paper yesterday, and was completely annoyed at the reasons suggested for the poor infant mortality rate.

"uh, like, older moms and stuff" was how I heard the article in my head, like some junior high school student's report who checked out the book but didn't do any analysis on the contents.

And Greaseball, I do think iatrogenic prematurity is a problem. I'm not sure how big a problem it is (and let's face it--it's not an obstetrical problem, it's the NICU's problem, *sardonic laughter*)

The facinating fact is, let's just say that even if truly premature babies born as a result of sloppy obstertical reasoning (baby's lookin' big on the u/s, I've got a vacation coming up, etc.) are a small group, they're a group, and if not for the doctors' intervention of induction, there would be no group.
tinyshoes is offline  
#9 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 07:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
lauraess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: creamery, pa
Posts: 4,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The mentioned article from comcast DID note the other possible reasons _ increase in sections, inductions, and preterm births in genereral, However the headline pointed to women delaying birth till later and then using artificial means that resulted in multiple birth that in turn resulted in more deaths. This is all speculation and so if someone was looking for the real reasons I guess waiting for those studies to be done and of course that takes time and research and concern from women themselves.
Waht gets me is that people believe headlines such as this and dont bother to do the research.
After a conversation about pregnancy interventions and options my freind said to me that she didnt have time to look for the info.: of course i told her she DID. how do I tell her that if the health of her baby is a concern than she should make the time?

laura
lauraess is offline  
#10 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 07:48 PM
 
KKmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: out talking to the crocuses
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess my background in science made me try to read between the lines of the articles I've seen, and I doubt the validity of their explanations for why the mortality went up. There were no hard numbers, no statistical associations, etc. for the possible reasons they listed, so it sounded to me like the kind of thing you say when you're wrapping up a paper to try to explain your results. "Well, it could have been because of this, or this, or this" but you don't have to have any grounds at all to say those things. Other doctors or scientists reading your paper understand this and know that it's all speculation, but if a layperson reads it, she/he might give that stuff equal footing with the real results.

Another couple reasons that I'm irked about why they didn't report or possibly do the socio-economic/racial breakdown is that
(1) if you've got the data, it's generally not that hard to run statistical analyses to see if there are any differences between sub-groups; and (2) it's been a big (hidden) problem in the past, why didn't they check it this time?
KKmama is offline  
#11 of 13 Old 02-13-2004, 08:27 PM
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree, KKmama.
pamamidwife is offline  
#12 of 13 Old 02-14-2004, 05:33 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Oh, Let us blame all of those older and poor women for our bad infant mortality rates.

Not the men in charge.

Let us play -Blaming the Victim-

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#13 of 13 Old 02-14-2004, 05:59 PM
 
KKmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: out talking to the crocuses
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actually, I think they're trying to blame older and *infertile* women. I was thinking more about this, and it's a pretty neat analysis for them; it's the *women's fault* for being older or having fertility problems.

Another thing the articles should have done (and I don't recall that they did) was to put the number in context: the US has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the "developed" world. (But if they had mentioned that, they would have probably had to expain why, and again--I realize I'm a broken record--a lot of it's because there are a lot of women who don't have access to decent healthcare or information.)
KKmama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off