Deaths among newborn babies high in U.S.
AdventureDad | May 10CNN has a short article (Edit:the article is based entirely on the reports below and CNN has nothing to do with the data) in their health section about the best and worst places in the world for children and mothers. The article has some interesting facts. The most surprising, at least to me, is the relatively high fatality rates for newborn babies in the U.S. It’s based on a survey by the humanitarian organization Save The Children which offers an honest and many times scary picture of the worlds children and mothers. The report, State Of The World’s Mother’s, looks at a number of basic factors that determines what countries are best and worst for children.
For me personally, reading the article is both joy and horror. I started reading the complete report a while back and have been preparing a post partly based on the report in honor of Mothers Day. More on this later in the week but what I find so telling about the facts is not what different countries are saying about mothers, which is always nice stuff, it’s instead how they treat women and mothers. Why do I feel both joy and horror about the article? I feel very proud of my birth country, Sweden, which is the number one place in the world for mothers and children. I think that’s a tremendous honor and it’s based on countless years of hard work with special focus on education, mothers, children, and equal rights for women. The horror, which quickly takes away the joy, is reading about the many countries that continue to struggle with unbelievably poor conditions for young children.
(Edit: Perhaps I was unclear but the fatality rates are of course ratios and has nothing to do with the actual amount of births or the amount of people in a country) United States situation concerning newborn fatality rates is not good, “tied near the bottom of industrialized nations like Hungary, Poland, Malta, and Slovakia“. Most Americans have probably not even heard of those countries but trust me, it’s not a flattering group of countries even though they’re not third-world countries. It’s very surprising to see the problem U.S. is having with deaths of newborn. Does anyone have any ideas why? One reason could be the large amount of people that don’t have health insurance but that’s pure speculation from my side. (Edit: As I mentioned, where women do well, babies do well. Women in U.S. do fairly well but suffer from an obscenely high rate of obesity. Could that have any impact? I’m not one to trust statistics blindly but in this case I see no reason to doubt the figures since the results come from a humanitarian organization with a good reputation. The countries that have the least amount of newborn deaths is Japan followed by Scandinavian countries and some other countries in Europe. Most of the countries on the bottom of the complete list, including all developing countries, are almost exclusively in Africa. They are struggling with children dying early for a variety of reasons. There is no easy solution but research has shown what is important to decrease the fatality rates. “The report highlights the three areas it say have the most influence on child-wellbeing:female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth, and use of family planning services”. Also not surprisingly, ”Educated women are more likely to marry and give birth later in life, to seek health care, and to encourage education for their children, including girls”. All factors that dramatically decrease child fatalities. It sounds so simple, doesn’t it?
I’m normally sensitive to seeing other people suffer and since I became a father this has gotten much worse. I really struggle with seeing kids dying or in difficult situations. Actually, I’m a wimp which I’ve mentioned before. It doesn’t even have to be children I’m familiar with. We had a difficult birth of my son and even though he’s perfectly healthy I worry about him dying often every now and then. That’s why the number of babies that die early is so difficult to deal with. Each year,”2 million babies in the world die within their first 24 hours, 2 million more die within their first month”. That’s a lot of kids. Progress is being made each year but we’ve got along way to go in many countries. If you look at the different countries and how their children are doing one thing becomes clear. “In countries where women do well, children do well”. That sounds like such a “simple” solution but it makes total sense. The Scandinavian countries all top the list over the best places in the world for mothers. We work hard to achieve an equal society for men and women and we’re doing very well. That’s the main reason why our kids are born healthy and have a good life. It’s not a solution that suits every country but perhaps a few more could use some of our ideas.
Mothers Day is coming up soon and that’s a reason for celebration. According to my lovely wife, I have the excellent “skill” of sucking the fun out of many things and apparently do so frequently. As the special day is nearing and we celebrate our mothers and what they have accomplished, perhaps we can keep one little details in the back of our heads. “5000 mothers will mourn the loss of the newborn they bear that very day in the developing world”. Really makes me appreciate my life, family, and son.
“It’s very surprising to see the problem U.S. is having with deaths of newborn. Does anyone have any ideas why?”
Firstly…Great post. :-)
I think part of the problem in the US (and here in my country, UK) is that fewer babies are being breastfed. This is due to the aggressive promotion of formula milk in the last 50 years and the mis-information that formula is as good as breastmilk. However much they say its “closer to breastmilk” it is still nothing like it….I can take a step to the left and yes I will be closer to you in the US but I am still miles away! :-)
Health care professionals don’t seem to be trained in the importance of breastmik to the health of the newborn and hand out bottles of formula far too easy…at least here they do.
US breastfeeding stats - 64% of babies breastfed after birth, falling to 29% at 6 months and only 16% at 1 year. The WHO reccomends exclusive breastfeeding for around 6 months then breastfeeding alongside solids until around 2 years old. As you can see less than 16% of US babies are getting this. :-(
I found this quote from representative Carolyn Maloney -
“The United States has one of the lowest breast-feeding rates of all industrialized nations and one of the highest rates of infant mortality.”
Of course there must be other factors, but I think that decreasing breastfeeding rates is definately up there among them. :-)
Formula is also a problem for the developing nations….Nestle ship the stuff over there without a thought about the fact that they have no safe water supply with which to prepare it. Many breastfeeding mothers boycott nestle because of this. :-)
Sorry didn’t mean to go on so much about Breastfeeding, its a topic I feel very stongly about. :-)
Take Care
Nikki
One factor probably not mentioned in the article is that the countries listed as having the lowest infant fatalities (Japan, Scandinavian countries, etc.) also have declining birth rates. The U.S. does not. When you have less babies being born to start with, you are naturally going to have less infant deaths, because the study is looking at total numbers, not a percentage of deaths out of the total number of births.
I used to work in OB/GYN care in the city of Seattle. The doctor I worked for (who was African-American) carried a large load of patients in drug-rehab programs and/or on welfare. I’ve seen enough abuse of the Medicaid system to make me sick, and my mother’s seen enough to write a book. That being said, they received good and diligent care from the staff and hospital. But many of these babies are born “compromised” - addicted to heroin, methadone, meth, or have severe complications because of their mother’s drug abuse - that they come into this world with the deck stacked against them. While not all of them did, many of these women didn’t start life off badly, but they made poor choices. They had access to health care and rehab, and they still made bad decisions that will affect their children for all their lives.
But sometimes, things just happen. Last year, one of my husband’s co-workers and his wife lost a baby at 8 and a half months gestation due to placental abruption. This would have been their second child. There was no determined cause and therefore, nothing they could have done to prevent it. We attended a very sad memorial service. On a happy note, they are due to have a baby (by repeat C-section) tomorrow!
It’s amazing that babies are born healthy, when there are so many things that can go wrong at any moment, and it feels like those variables increase immediately after they are born. Each baby is a gift, and should be treated as such. It’s a shame that all are not.
I don’t have enough time at the moment to read the entire article, but I wonder what the criteria was when considering infant death. Was it only based on full-term births, or did it take into account all of the premature births that occur here in the US. If taking into account the premature births, the data could maybe be skewed. Perhaps in other countries those premature births would have ended up as miscarriages, instead of being counted as births?
Or maybe it’s due to the US’s over-diligence in making the birthing process such a medical procedure. (I’m biased, I worked with a midwife and had wonderful births.)
It’s hard to trust statistics, though - you can make them say anything you want.
Deanna — the study is in fact looking at mortality _rates_, so that’s factored in. (The five countries in the quoted list above all have 5 newborn deaths per 1000 live births.)
The study links this to education — the rate is much better in states where women are more educated on average — but really, that statistic probably also corresponds well with more-likely-to-have-health-insurance.
I totally agree with Deanna… I think that the data listed in the article is not looking at the total picture. Also I don’t think that breast-feeding is going to have much bearing in infant mortality. Deanna made the point that the US has a growing population, whereas Japan and Sweden are declining. So I think that the information looks skewed. And Sara’s point is also something I have heard about as well. Preemie births are on the rise as well. I think that CNN doesn’t always give us the whole picture. And I do think that the US has a good healthcare system, but the only kicker is that if you have insurance it works well for you.
Another great topic - well done. I was wondering about the other side of the equation recently as I do every year on my younger son’s birthday. It was a dramatic night when he was born and without the contemporary standard of medical care, which we all take for granted, his mother, my wife, would have died. The reason would have been pretty simple, almost banal, but it was the standard of medical care that caught the problem and saved her in time. It is amazing how much money this world can waste and yet it’s still struggling to keep up such basic standards for as many people as possible.
I will have to find the article and report back, but I saw an article recently along a similar line. The basics of that article (which eludes me at this time) also stated what seems to be obvious, “When women do better, the children do better,” but was far more decisive on their reasoning.
The United States is the WORST industrialized nation in the world when it comes to pregnancy and business. Too short maternity leaves. Businesses that despite laws that are supposed to be family friendly continue to make women feel stressed (not a good thing for the mother or unborn child) about letting the company down by becoming pregenant (Don’t believe that happens? ask any working mother that had to go through office politics).
Woman are forced to work far too long into their terms, and need to stress about returning too soon, because legislation as it stands today is still far too business friendly. How can the former head of Exxon retire with $440 million dollars, if Suzie employee is given a few extra weeks and not forced to work “until she drops.”
When you factor that in, it is no surprise that Scandanavian countries, which have some of the most family friendly laws, are at the top of the list of countries with the lowest fatality rates. They put health ahead of the eps of corporate stock.
I’m so glad that you wrote about this, particularly about the correlation between the treatment of women in a society and the survival rate of babies. The better treatment that women receive–education, medical care, etc.–the better the odds that their babies will survive. It seems, from my comfortable perch here in the U.S., such a simple solution to provide women with equal access to education and medicine–equal to what men receive. Unfortunately, it’s rarely that simple. Mama has spent most of her adult life working on this issue, and often sees the worst of it in developing countries. However, it plays out here in the industrialized countries as well, when women aren’t provided the same access to education and healthcare that men are.
I have to second what LatteMan says. I work at an education association that works to benefit K-12 students, but which offers no maternity or paternity leave beyond what is required by FMLA, which only requires that they hold an equivalent position open for 12 weeks. Fortunately, Mama gets two paid months of maternity leave (I believe they offer the same to dads). What’s the business case for this? Which of us do you think is more loyal to their employer?
It’s also interesting to note that the single most effective form of birth control that does not require any contraception or abortion is education for women. The more educated the women are in a society, the lower the birthrate. That is rarely a solution that men in power are willing to pursue, however.
I think the lesson is that if you want to save a baby, educate a woman.
I wonder, like someone else, if it has to do with the fact that it could be counting premie deaths that in most places would be chalked up to “late miscarriage” or “stillborn”.
On the other hand, I also notice that the countries listed as the best sort of ring a little bell in my head that makes me think, “Wait, aren’t those countries that have been pretty into eugenics in the past?”. Maybe they are more likely to abort fetuses with problems than try to deliver them and fix them.
Peace people
We love you