babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » US Infant Mortality Up

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US Infant Mortality Up
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 12 February 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I put this thread in the Feminism Forum, because this infant mortality study claims the culprit for rising rates may be women who are choosing to have children later, because of career-building, etc. This study by the US Centres for disease control bothers me.
quote:
CDC officials said the exact reasons for the increase are not yet clear. But previous CDC research suggests the rise in infant mortality may reflect the long trend among American women toward delaying motherhood. Women who put off motherhood until their 30s or 40s are more likely to have babies with birth defects or other potentially deadly complications. Also, older women are more likely to use fertility drugs to get pregnant, and such drugs often lead to twins, triplets and other multiple births. And multiple births carry a higher risk of premature labor and low birth weight - conditions that can endanger babies' lives.
Is this true? Or is it just the latest in propaganda meant to get women back to being knocked up in their 20s, before they finish university and get their careers going. I mean, for a while there, you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a news story about how waiting to get pregnant could mean you're infertile, your babies will die, you'll end up childless and alone, etc., etc., despite the equally numerous stories about older celebrities having healthy babies.

I was nearly 40 when The Wee Tyrant was born. Many of my friends and colleagues have waited until their late 30s or early 40s to have families. No fertility problems, no complications. The only thing I've noticed is the increasing medicalization of birth. Could this be the problem? Doctors handing out fertility pills like candy when an older couple can't get pregnant after 3 months of trying and they've got to have that precious bundle nownownow?

And what about poverty? Doesn't maternal poverty have anything to do with low birth weights and infant mortality? The US has a higher infant mortality rate than some non-industrialized or "Second World" nations.

How does an organization like the CDC come up with infant mortality stats without collecting information on how they died? Why do they say they don't know why there's been an increase?

Inquiring minds want to know.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2004 03:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, the poverty thing would have been my first guess as to the reason why the US infant mortality rate is up, not because of women having children later. If that were the only factor, then the infant mortality rate should be zero in countries where women get married at 14 and have babies before they're even out of their teens.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 12 February 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Age can be a factor. The risks of genetic defects do increase with women over 40, though that is no guarantee, and not all defects will be fatal. Age probably does have an effect, but I don't see anybody saying that it has led to a shapr increase in infant mortality (aside from the speculation in this thread, of course).

However, I beleive it is only one factor, and by no means the most significant. Michelle is right if they were trying to suggest that age is the only factor. But that is not to say that it is not an influence at all- if in those countries "where women get married at 14 and have babies before they're even out of their teens" the women also waited until they were 40-something but the other adverse conditions still existed, the infant mortality rate would be even higher.

quote:
Could this be the problem? Doctors handing out fertility pills like candy when an older couple can't get pregnant after 3 months of trying and they've got to have that precious bundle nownownow?

That is likely more significant than the age factor.

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shenanigans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2993

posted 12 February 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for Shenanigans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll put my money down on poverty. My mother had me when she was 38. Then poverty and we (my mom and I) were either hungry, sick or freezing.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 February 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Having babies too early carries more risks than having babies in your 20s, too. It's my understanding that girls giving birth in their early teens are often at risk for low birth-weight babies, preemies, etc, not to mention other injuries to the mother herself because they haven't finished growing.

I think medicalization of birth has contributed to a lot of problems for both women and babies. Many c-sections, in my opinion (based on reading reams of studies and publications from both the alternative/midwifery side and the doctor/standard medicine side) are iatrogenic (doctor-caused) in nature. Often they look to mess with a labour before it even begins...

On the other hand, I've also seen some of my friends who are my age or a few years older go through miscarriages and one had a still-birth. Were they caused strictly by the age of the mother? Who can tell? I had both of mine in my 30s, and had the greatest, low-risk pregnancies and births possible. I even had my second one at home.

I think there needs to be a lot more serious data-crunching to support the conclusions the CDC is putting forward.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 15 February 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd vote with the over-medicalization of birth and lack of access to prenatal care, nutrition, etc.

Think of how many people in the U-S are obese, that causes many health problems, and I'm sure that a large percentage of expectant mothers are now falling into that category. Overall poor health can make for an unhealthy infant AND a difficult birth. Low breastfeeding rates also play a part in infant mortality.

I'm sure the rising age of mothers does contribute SOMETHING to it. We are biological beings, after all and fertility does, on the whole, start decreasing later in the fertile stage. But, I wouldn't imagine it was a really widespread problem.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 15 February 2004 09:34 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All of the above are probably factors, but Rebecca's remark about "propaganda to get women back to getting knocked up in their 20s" seems the most likely explanation for the attention this is getting. I remember seeing similar scare stories in the National Post a while back, only they were on the inability to have children rather than infant mortality. It's not necessarily false, but it's likely true that its influence on infant mortality relatively small compared to the other factors. My mum was born when her mum was 40, and there were no problems. Of course, this is only a single example, not enough to draw conclusions either way.

It should be possible to study mortality among late-born children from different eras and compare them to children born to mothers of of similar ages born today, but I don't know of any research on the topic, and I wonder if the study above has examined this. Somehow I doubt it.

[ 15 February 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 15 February 2004 10:46 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Couldn't be because of the atrocious health care system they have down there, could it? The inability to afford insurance, the reluctance of women, and not just poor women, to go to a doctor because of the costs, lack of pre-natal care, the poorly funded public hospitals...

Nah, it must be the womens' fault.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
windymustang
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4509

posted 15 February 2004 11:10 PM      Profile for windymustang     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Low breastfeeding rates also play a part in infant mortality.


I realize that it is much healthier to breastfeed, but does it actually lower infant mortality rates? In the 40's and 50's when bottle feeding was so popular were IMR higher due to bottle feeding.

I tend to agree with the poverty link. Poverty affects all areas of health. If a pregnant then new mother can not eat properly, be housed properly and receive proper prenatal care, how can her baby have the best chance of survival?


From: from the locker of Mad Mary Flint | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 15 February 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was what I assumed the point of the thread was going to be, on seeing the title. I think Chomsky has remarked on numerous occasions that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than many other industrialized nations. Gosh, think that could have anything to do with the gap between rich and poor?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 16 February 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I realize that it is much healthier to breastfeed, but does it actually lower infant mortality rates? In the 40's and 50's when bottle feeding was so popular were IMR higher due to bottle feeding.

I don't know any hard stats on this for here, and don't know if it's the case at all. In 3rd world countries, however, where there isn't a safe water supply, children fed formula often pick up diseases that would make an adult or older child uncomfortable, but are deadly for babies -- they dehydrate so much more quickly.

I do know, however, that it is considered better for preemies and babies with health problems to have mother's milk than formula.

Most likely, the infant mortality rate is related to nutrition and health care. The midwife we had during my second pregnancy worked for NGOs in South America for many years (delivered thousands of babies with little or no doctor backup), and her opinion was that good nutrition and exercise, just healthy lifestyle, eliminated more than half the problems that pregnant women and newborns have.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 16 February 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This discussion came up on another forum and I found a lot of information on the WHO web site. One of the biggest factors connected to infant mortality according to the studies I looked at was literacy. This was a surprise to me at first but when you think about it, it makes sense. If you can't read instructions for over the counter medication or even how to mix formula properly you could be in trouble caring for an infant.
Obviously pre and post natal care are important and that is another area where some states in the US are almost 3rd world in their standards. Shockingly the illiteracy in some of the poorer states was listed at over 70%, that is a level 1 literacy (perhaps able to sign your name and not much else).
A combination of poverty , healthcare access, education and awareness seem to all contribute to the infant mortality rate.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 16 February 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When my wife had our daughter she was mid-forties, and the medical people were constantly having her in for yet another ultrasound and doing tests and whatnot and occasionally guilt-tripping her about having a kid so old--but when I inquired, it turned out the age-related risk factors they were worried about stacked up to well under 1% chance of a problem.

One suspects the infant mortality difficulties in the US revolve around larger risk factors, especially given that even today not all US women are beginning to give birth in their forties.

My money is on poverty and obesity as major causes, and on traditionalist backlash as the reason for fingering particular background-noise issues.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Madame X
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4531

posted 18 February 2004 08:39 PM      Profile for Madame X     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It has nothing to do with women having their children later. If anything it has more to do with women having children too soon when they are closer to being children themselves.

Poverty. racism. sexism. Lack of prenatal care. These are more important factors. In some areas of the U.S., i.e. parts of the deep South, infant and child mortality is much higher than the average and higher than that of many other nations.

[ 18 February 2004: Message edited by: Madame X ]


From: here or there or eveeeery where | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca