Author
|
Topic: US Infant Mortality Up
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 12 February 2004 03:36 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 12 February 2004 06:17 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 16 February 2004 01:33 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|