Author
|
Topic: More U.S. women dying in childbirth
|
|
|
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443
|
posted 25 August 2007 11:18 AM
quote: Other characteristics of the maternal mortality rate include:Race: Studies have found that the maternal death rate in black women is at least three times greater than is it is for whites. Black women are more susceptible to complications like high blood pressure and are more likely to get inadequate prenatal care. Quality of care: Three different studies indicate at least 40 percent of maternal deaths could have been prevented.
When I was pregnant with my second, I was so thirsty that I would drink gallons and gallons of water, I knew my baby was breech because I could feel her head by my rib cage. I told my doctor and he ignored me. I told him again and he literally threw a referral at me for a specialist. The specialist found out that the baby was breech and that I had gestational diabetes. In those days I was not a strong woman, it took everything I had to stand up to this man. I can't imagine what it is like for women of color and young women.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 25 August 2007 11:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck: CTVAnd it also seems that all that extra weight in pregnancy may lead to birth defects.
It's not the extra weight gained in pregnancy that's the problem. No, it's the extra weight gained from eating buckets of fried chicken and BK Double Stackers every day of their lives prior to getting knocked up, added to the normal stresses of pregnancy. You get some 300 pound woman with the prescription pants pregnant, and she's bound to have problems. I read that in the US, over 75% of the population is either overweight, with 40% of that number obese. The morbidly obese (WTF does that even mean anyway) are the fastest growing (snerk) segment of the population. I will edit this be gender neutral, and say that American men are as fat or fatter than American women. [ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Slider ]
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 25 August 2007 11:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Slider:
It's not the extra weight gained in pregnancy that's the problem. No, it's the extra weight gained from eating buckets of fried chicken and BK Double Stackers every day of their lives prior to getting knocked up, added to the normal stresses of pregnancy. You get some 300 pound woman with the prescription pants pregnant, and she's bound to have problems. I read that in the US, over 75% of the population is either overweight, with 40% of that number obese. The morbidly obese (WTF does that even mean anyway) are the fastest growing (snerk) segment of the population.
Slider, I think the point could have been made without the crude stereotyping.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 25 August 2007 11:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Slider, I think the point could have been made without the crude stereotyping.
Are you saying that Americans are not, in general, fat? Because they are. quote: Increasing numbers of Americans are becoming too fat to fit into X-ray machines, US researchers report.
BBC
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 26 August 2007 05:14 AM
Do we not accumulate toxins in our fat? Maybe the reasoning that obese women have greater incidents of children born with birth defects is specious if we attribute it only to obesity.There's weird things going on at Walpole island, where the residents drinking water is downstream from Sarnia's Chemical valley. The male to female ratio is way out of wack. Is it because of too many cheezies? Too many Big Macs? Don't make me get Occam's butter knife out on this.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 26 August 2007 06:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck: And the prevalence of fast food everywhere - cheaper and easier than real food.The study was too broad. What about overweight women who are overweight from eating a lot of healthy food as opposed to overweight women who rely on junk food? What about the medium size women who eat nothing but junk but somehow metabolize it? (Not me, I gained 80 pounds with my first baby). I don't think the numbers on a scale, taken in isolation, can be considered to be the cause of anything.
Did you look at the actual studies - or just the NBC article? I wanted to find some of the actual research while reading the article, but which research they were referring to didn't seem clear to me from the article. [ 26 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260
|
posted 26 August 2007 06:08 AM
The greater incidence of birth defects among children of obese women sounds like a nutritional problem, especially when you see double the incidence of neural tube defects (eg spina bifida), a defect associated with folate deficiency specifically, and poor nutrition in general.Tommy, I've heard that there is an increase in female births everywhere; not sure where to find this stat. One theory is all the hormones in the drinking water from birth control pills, though I've sometimes thought this theory might be perpetuated by so-cons. (In my family, ie, my first cousins and I, and most recently my brother and his wife, there have been five births in the past 12 years. None were boys.) Though I have to say, as a girl myself and a mom of girls, it kinda makes me queasy to corroborate any theory suggesting that girlness results from a prenatal toxic contamination of some sort.
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 26 August 2007 06:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sineed: The greater incidence of birth defects among children of obese women sounds like a nutritional problem, especially when you see double the incidence of neural tube defects (eg spina bifida), a defect associated with folate deficiency specifically, and poor nutrition in general.Tommy, I've heard that there is an increase in female births everywhere; not sure where to find this stat. One theory is all the hormones in the drinking water from birth control pills, though I've sometimes thought this theory might be perpetuated by so-cons. (In my family, ie, my first cousins and I, and most recently my brother and his wife, there have been five births in the past 12 years. None were boys.) Though I have to say, as a girl myself and a mom of girls, it kinda makes me queasy to corroborate any theory suggesting that girlness results from a prenatal toxic contamination of some sort.
There is pretty good evidence that birth control pills are having an effect on fish populations for example. Unfortunately, socons are coopting the issue so it might end up being harder to find a solution. The general environmental issue at stake is a technological one. Most pharmaceutical pills (BCPs, multivitamins, Alendronate, et cetera) are designed such that a huge proportion ends up flushed down the toilet. That's obviously bad. I'm sure there are problems with other pills as well, and if there are not there probably eventually will be. I can imagine pharmaceutical developers view the toilet as an infinite sink. It's not. I never realized that these statistics might corroborate a theory that girliness results from toxicity. I think that's clearly not it but I guess you're right some people might believe that. You know, if the only harmful hormone going around was that from bovine growth hormone cow and milk, there might be greater "masculinity" in both boys and girls, and I don't think people would then say boyishness comes from toxins. Lastly, I remember reading that the proportion of sperm in a man which is Y or X varies with factor such as age, unfortunately I can't remember the detail. But it's conceivable it could vary with diet as well, for whatever reason. And then random other things. In a recent issue of Psychology Today, they mentioned beautiful couples have more girls (12% higher chance). [ 26 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 27 August 2007 03:33 PM
quote: Tommy, I've heard that there is an increase in female births everywhere; not sure where to find this stat. One theory is all the hormones in the drinking water from birth control pills, though I've sometimes thought this theory might be perpetuated by so-cons.
I've heard that too. But I do believe the Walpole Island example is more extreme. It used to be that on the left we blamed corporations for everything. That all the answers related back to eliminating or regulating big business. Now, in almost every field of endeavor, we now blame ourselves and corporations have free reign when it comes to labour issues, environmental issues, health issues..... You know, I think they won.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732
|
posted 27 August 2007 04:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Did you look at the actual studies - or just the NBC article? [ 26 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
No, I read the article and then I looked around a bit but didn't really find anything that seemed to address this that well. I would like to see a study done that examines the root causes of obesity and how that relates to the incidence of birth defects. I don't think the simple fat=defects would stand up. But I am just guessing, based on life experience and having a whole bunch of not so tiny friends and relatiives with perfect babies.
From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 27 August 2007 04:39 PM
quote: Endocrine disruption should be right at the top of the list of most critical technological disasters facing the world today, up with climate change. With little notice, vast volumes and combinations of synthetic chemicals have settled in every environment in the world, including the womb environment. Synthetic chemicals at very low concentrations in the womb change how genes are programmed, cells develop, tissues form, and organs function, and thus undermine the potential and survival of developing animals, including humans. The chemicals threatening the integrity of future generations are derived from the processing of crude oil and natural gas, the same processes that are driving climate change. This is an integral part of the climate change story.These chemicals, called endocrine disruptors, are in products that have become an integral part of our global lifestyle and economy. And in order for the products to be sold, the public must believe they are safe. Adding fuel to corporate denial is the unwillingness by anyone to accept the fact that every woman -- yes, every woman -- is walking around during her reproductive years with a mixture of chemicals in her body that cannot only change her physiology and how she functions, but also can start a chain of events that can change how her unborn child will be constructed, function, and mature throughout its lifetime. It is a transgenerational concept too preposterous for most people to accept. They would rather forget it. Besides, what can they do about it?
Forgot the link .. [ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|