(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.
The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births. - CNN -------- Hey, we're beating Latvia! ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 02:57 PM babthrower Yes but the U.S. has a lot of teen-aged mothers, and this correlates with newborn death. KLIK
Teen-agers, pregnant , would be less likely to avoid tobacco and drugs, eat sensibly, and take the other steps that sensible mothers take to help assure a healthy newborn. Even though girls show more forsight (the ability to foresee consequences of actions) than boys, the fact is they haven't matured enough to plan their own lives, let alone take on responsibility for an infant.
Sex education, health education, free condoms -- preventing unwanted children will prevent newborn deaths.
Teen pregnancy is epidemic (though it is decreasing). Maybe if there was less Romeo and Juliet taught in high school literature and more social realism - maybe Nell Dunn's Poor Cow. (Teen mother, thief boyfriend goes to prison, etc.)
It really is sad that there is so much teen pregnancy. Those young girls have a fantasy in which the boyfriend loves them and will love the baby, in fact maybe some of them plan a baby with some silly notion that this will confirm their love. But boys that age don't even want to take out the garbage, let alone take responsibility for a demanding little infant. So the girl is on her own. And if the father is older, he may well be fixated on "ideal" teen-aged girls, and may just move on to find a new girl when the old girlfriend becomes pregnant and less 'girlish' - becomes a 'bitch' in other words.
It doesn't matter if the parents are supportive or not. The reality is the girl want a boyfriend. When he's out of the picture, and she's fat and pregnant and unattractive, she gets depressed. She eats too much, doesn't exercise, and takes out her depression on family. There is a tendency to self-medicate depression with drugs and alcohol. Some become bulemic so they won't gain too much weight - not good for baby. Because the parents want them to conform, the girls often leave home and live with other teens. Not a good setting for pre-natal wellness.
There's a correlation between teen mother's education level and newborn survival. That is a factor but perhaps not a cause. (Maybe the education is evidence of more maturity rather than the direct cause of neonatal health.)
Sadly there is neglect and abuse of the child even when newborn, and of course later in childhood. If the father is with mother and child, we get control issues and the inability of either parent to deal with frustration. A teen, male or female, who got what he/she wanted from parents by slamming doors, swearing, yelling, and storming out of the house is not good parent material.
Personally I think that all teens should be reversibly neutered at puberty. Then when they actually want children, they can be tested for emotional maturity and asked to prove that they can provide - just like pre-adoption screening.
Only when vetted can the neutering be reversed. Then you'd get good neonatal health. ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 04:31 PM DorianGreyed The article you linked to, whose figures and conclusions I am not questioning, gives more from the same source as the one I linked to.
The report, which includes an 'Early Motherhood Risk Ranking' that identifies 50 countries where motherhood is particularly dangerous to young girls and their babies, says that nine of the 10-highest risk countries are found in Africa, with the West African nations of Niger, Liberia and Mali topping the list.
The report, which also includes annual Save the Children's annual ranking of 119 countries of the State of the World's Mothers, based on their health, education, and political status.
As in the past five years, the Scandinavian nations of Sweden, Denmark, and Finland dominated the top ranks, while the lowest-ranked countries are all found along a band of nations that run from Guinea-Bissau and Mauritania in the west to Yemen in the east, with Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Mali filling out the bottom of the list. The United States ranked number 10, behind Nordic, West European nations, Australia, and Canada.
The criteria used to rank the countries include six indicators of women's well-being - lifetime risk of maternal mortality; per capita contraception use; percent of births attended by trained personnel, incidence of anemia among pregnant women; adult female literacy rate; and participation in the national government - and four indicators of children's well-being - infant mortality rate; gross primary enrollment rate; access to safe water; and extent of malnutrition.
The U.S. ranking is due in part to its having a maternal mortality rate of one in 2,500 - roughly the same as Bulgaria and significantly worse than the Nordic countries, western Europe, and even much of Central Europe. Similarly, with an infant mortality rate of seven per 1,000 births, the U.S. tied with Cuba in the Index and fell below virtually all of Europe.
Birth rates for adolescent girls in the U.S. are the highest among 30 industrialized world and are even higher in some remote rural communities than in many poor countries. Indeed, at 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19, the U.S. has almost twice as many teenage births as the next highest, Russia, and almost 20 times as many as South Korea, which, at 3 per 1,000 women, is the lowest-ranked in the industrial world.
I note an interesting fact. Once again, the US, with, according to some, "the best health care system in the world", ranks with Cuba, with its evel Castro and socialized medicine, in infant mortality. In a few other threads, I've pointed out that life expectancy in the US and Cuba are almost identical. Since Cuba, as a nation, spends much less per capita for medical care than the US, one wonders what the life expectancy in Cuba would be if they spent as much per capita as the US. ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 05:04 PM babthrower "Since Cuba, as a nation, spends much less per capita for medical care than the US, one wonders what the life expectancy in Cuba would be if they spent as much per capita as the US."
Possible clue:
My husband and I notice that TV commercials will offer a drug answer to some commonplace problem which can be treated with home rememdies or change of diet or activity level. Then comes the list of side effects. Eek Eek Eek
We both agree we'd rather by far have the ailment than risk the cure.
Another interesting fact: Several countries with excellent neonatal 'scores' use midwives (a registered nurse with five years training in midwifery, not just someone who hangs out a shingle.)
So drugs and hospitals can be bad for us sometimes. A drug industry, for instance, with a first rate lobby can be bad for our health. ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 07:09 PM Rakuchild I'm with you on the drug thing, bab!
Last Friday the college where I work had an inservice day and a "health fair". All the health screenings (diabetes, bp, cholesterol, etc.) were for fulltime employees only. Another parttimer and I wandered into the "health fair" area and were offered lots of swag- pens, notepads, clipboards, etc.- all with drug companies names on them. Yes, now I am the proud owner of a Viagra clipboard! It even came with a pad of medical history forms to use should I ever open my own practice.
Now my idea of a "health fair" would be to cover all employees who wished to have a bp check or whatever, and do programs on healthy foods, exercise, etc. But instead they brought in the legalized drug pushers.
Not all the spending on health care in the US is wise spending. ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 07:34 PM frankvan How many billions are spent to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer who can't write the prescription anyway? How many of the drugs for a given complaint are duplicates of similar remedies? Isn't that an instance where rather than lowering cost through competition, it merely increases the number of drug makers sharing the profits from fomenting hypochondria ? "Ask your doctor if Blabberex is right for you." Side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, internal bleeding, and loss of memory, etc. And as soon as the patent on a high priced prescription drug is about to run out, e.g Prilosec, a slightly revised version appears on the market: Nexium, at twice the price. I get my medications through the Veterans Administration and they hold down the costs by limiting the number of duplicate or similar drugs for treating the same condition. Do we really need 6 or 7 different cholesterol lowering drugs ? Does anyone know how many hundreds of insurance companies and how many pharmacies and how many plans offering different co-pays, different available drugs,etc make up the new and wonderful Medicare Part D prescription drug mish-mash? ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 07:34 PM DorianGreyed "So drugs and hospitals can be bad for us sometimes. A drug industry, for instance, with a first rate lobby can be bad for our health."
"Not all the spending on health care in the US is wise spending."
You mean...(Gasp!)...that the US may not have the finest care anywhere? ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 07:39 PM DorianGreyed By the way, I want a Viagra® clipboard. ************************************************************* 05-09-06, 08:03 PM babthrower Here in B.C. the NDP government started restricting the amount paid for a drug on behalf of patients to the price of the generic form of the drug.
Quicker'n you can say 3M Pharmaceuticals, we were getting paid ads on television telling us that this was an interference with our right to choose our medical treatment.
quote: Birth rates for adolescent girls in the U.S. are the highest among 30 industrialized world and are even higher in some remote rural communities than in many poor countries.
Would the 'virginity pledge' movement be having an effect on that? Is it statistically significant?
'For about two decades, the top public health agencies in America urged young people to use condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
But the U.S. government has dramatically reversed course. Over the past five years, it has spent nearly $1 billion to persuade young people that the only safe form of sex is within marriage -- and that condoms are not as effective as people think.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to bring the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage message to the nation’s classrooms. Millions more are going to religious organizations that urge kids to take a virginity pledge promising to remain abstinent-until-marriage...
...Columbia University’s Peter Bearman co-authored the most comprehensive study ever done on adolescent health and sexuality. He says, "Sex education doesn’t cause all these negative outcomes. What causes these negative outcomes is kids who are having sex and aren’t protecting themselves."
It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs -- and there was some good news.
"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It’s almost two school years."
So what's the downside?
"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex...
..."There’s a group of people who are using abstinence as a vehicle, pretending to be concerned about public health," says Bearman. "But it’s really a vehicle to advance a program, a cultural program that doesn’t help public health."
"But if you’ve got kids who’re saying, 'I’m going to abstain. I’m not gonna have sex.' So they’re not going to get pregnant. They’re not going to have a sexually transmitted disease. Isn’t that improving public health?" asks Bradley.
"Well, it would if they didn’t have sex," says Bearman. "But they do eventually have sex, and then they have unprotected sex, and that doesn’t protect you."'www.cbsnews.com ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 07:30 AM frankvan I guess a lot depends on how one identifies "sex".
Oral sex jumps among young Study in city shows percentage more than doubled from '94 to '04 Following a national trend, oral sex is on the rise among teens and young adults in Baltimore. Studies of records from 1994 and 2004 show a sharp increase in the proportion of young patients at the city's two health clinics who reported having oral sex. Following a national trend, oral sex is on the rise among teens and young adults in Baltimore. The rate among females of the same age jumped from 14 percent to 38 percent, she said. As part of the medical histories they provided on their initial visits, patients were asked whether they had engaged in oral sex during the previous 90 days. The questions were asked at the city's eastern clinic in the 600 block of N. Caroline St. and the western facility in the 1500 block of North Ave., Erbelding said. There were 2,598 first-time patients at the city clinics in 1994 and 6,438 a decade later, an increase Erbelding attributed to the expansion of city medical services
From today's Baltimore Sun . ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 08:26 AM Rakuchild
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: By the way, I want a Viagra® clipboard.
Ask your doctor if it's right for you. ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 08:48 AM DorianGreyed "Ask your doctor if it's right for you."
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 08:51 AM Fourbrick2
quote: Oral sex jumps among young
The mind boggles! That must be some experience. ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 11:50 AM FredPuli Oh, dear. Over in Britain we don't see adverts for prescription drugs. That's not surprising. It would be against the law to advertise them to the general public.So the drug companies target the doctors instead Big Grin The doctors, naturally, prescribe generic drugs under the National Health Service. As to other drugs they prescribe whatever they are sold on and which are approved. If you take private treatment then you expect the same common sense.
It's a mystery why a doctor, private or not, should be legitimately pestered for a particular brand or particular specific.If you go to a doctor you expect them to rely on their clinical judgment and their professional knowledge not some advert that you've seen in a magazine. I don't think that Professor Williams, my liver specialist, would take kindly to my helpful hints . What's he getting paid for? All those years of training and reaching his level just to have me suggesting a cure? I don't think so ! He's a nice man, but there are limits !
Hmmm. A Viagra clipboard , eh? What are you supposed to do with the clip ? Confused ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 01:07 PM DvdGStwrt And that is bad how exactly?
I’m asking that seriously but then I consider that the infant mortality rate was been on a steady decline. For the past 100 years and more:
1860’s the infant mortality rate was 300 per 1000. 1910 to 1920 it was 150 per 1000. 1920 to 1940 it was 100 per 1000. Post world war it dropped dramatically with antibiotics until today we are looking at a whopping 6 deaths per 1000.
Not too long ago in human history people didn’t bother with naming baby until it was 1-3 years old because it stood a high chance of not surviving. We have come a long way, and yet we still have a little further to go, but considering all of the complexities of the human body, all the things that can go wrong with reproduction I’m utterly amazed that our species exists. Let alone having such a high rate of survival of infants.
Further, considering that the average American diet and exercise program is bad (to say the least) the medical field has done great to prevent infant death rates from being that high. The price of Micky D’s as your diet does affect the viability of one’s off spring. America is fat and growing fatter – it’s an epidemic of obesity which correlates in an epidemic of obesity related ills and diseases.
The article doesn’t link the death rate to known factors, such as that most of those deaths are related to mothers who take illegal drugs during pregnancy, or that most, although offered excellent “free” prenatal care just refuse to take it or that even a few are not aware they are pregnant until late term, smoking, drinking and eating poorly through the most crucial early stages of pregnancy.
I bet if we really looked at the problem we would find that there is a correlation between our suppressed sexuality and our high rate of infant mortality. But then nobody will dare go there because we are doing “God’s Will” in keeping condoms, safe sex and awareness out of the minds and hands of our teens. I wonder how many teen mothers – aware that they are missing their menstruation and having a pretty decent clue as to why – refuse prenatal care to “hide the pregnancy” out of fear of reprisal.
I doubt it is a medical problem – we have the medicine and the science we are armed with knowledge, the application thereof is hampered by various issues that our American Way of Life refuses to look at. ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 01:17 PM DorianGreyed "...we have the medicine and the science..."
We have it, but it isn't available to all of us. People in the US still die because they can't afford medical care. ************************************************************* 05-10-06, 02:17 PM Rakuchild
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Hmmm. A Viagra clipboard , eh? What are you supposed to do with the clip ? Confused
I suppose if you poke around the internet, you'll find a website that has some ideas. You'd probably have to have a credit card to access the info though. Wink
I don't believe it's uncommon for a teen to hide pregnancy for a few months mostly out of fear and uncertainty. ************************************************************* 05-12-06, 11:20 AM Rakuchild Interesting article about how the availability of contraception affects the conception and the abortion rate.
"Asked what was driving the trends, the authors noted that some state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or made more restrictive in recent years. State and federal programs have increasingly focused on abstinence rather than contraception, and some analysts have argued that the shift is leading to less use of contraceptives and more unintended pregnancies.
Many social conservatives say, however, that contraceptives have limitations and that the only way a woman can ensure she will not have an unintended pregnancy is to refrain from sexual intercourse until she is ready to have a child."
I wonder how many of those social conservatives are the result of failed birth control measures? If every woman waited "until she is ready to have a child" to engage in sex, there would be a huge increase in the sales of hand lotions and porn mags.
It's not just the business of medicine and pharmaceutical companies that's making health care unattainable, but the cuts in social programs- programs that were available to assist me when I was poor and pregnant. Programs that made a difference in prenatal care.
Those of you who want to see a decline in the abortion rate- what are you doing to raise your fellow citizens out of poverty? A couple can't use birth control if they can't afford it. ************************************************************* 05-12-06, 12:14 PM babthrower Raku, this is a perfect illustration of why living in the dream-world of the Religious Right is disastrous for North America: they are obsessed with proving they're right to the point that they are completely blind to reality.
They should be made to write down 10,000 times a day, "Itdoesntworkitdoesntworkitjustdoesntwork."
They can't figure that out by looking around them, you see.
That won't fix the problem, but it will give these interfering fools something to do and keep them out of mischiefous meddling in what they do not understand: social problems.
(I think young people should be reversibly sterilized at puberty. When they want children, and are put through a process as rigorous as that which pre-adoptive parents must undergo, to assure they are emotionally and financially ready to have children, the procedure can be reversed. (It wouldn't prevent STD's, but it would prevent the far more devastating problem of the unwanted and brutalized children we see under the present systems.) But hey, that's just me.)
It just amazes me how blind and stupid religious beliefs can make some people. If the Wright Brothers had applied the same type of reasoning to their attempts to fly, we'd still be living in horse-and-buggy days.
Orville: Gee, Wilbur, this is the 487th time we have tried to get this thing to fly, and it still won't. Should we look at the design and try something different? Maybe some light frame, sort of like a kite, or a bird's wing, and some guywires to control the shape so it can manoeuver?
Wilbur: No, no, Orville, the Good Book says it should be a wheel, to get way up in the middle of the air, so grab that side of the wagon wheel one more time, but we'll kneel and pray first, and this time when we toss it up in the air, with god's help it will cross the Atlantic!
5,000 years of the history of civilization has taught them nothing. The only hope is get them out of positions of power and influence.
The 'politically correct' view that we must respect all opinions, no matter how stupid they are, is very destructive. ************************************************************* 05-12-06, 02:46 PM Rakuchild Hmm...Bab- perhaps this plan isn't so crazy-
Let's start a movement called "Distract the Bastards '06." On election day this November, Democrats should underhandedly set up distractions in closely contested areas that lure Republicans away from the voting booth. For example, free NASCAR jacket giveaways in Virginia. All-day hunting contests in Texas, with big prize money. Free all-you-can-eat religious-themed barbecues in Ohio. Carnivals in Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and elsewhere with surefire enticements like dunk-the-gay-guy booths and redneck vs. abortionist paintball matches. Or how about Indian reservation casino trips in Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming, where we ply 'em with endless buckets of nickels to play slots all day. These events would typically be held in the most far-reaching rural areas where access to the polls is extremely limited. We'll get 'em all liquored up, feed 'em lots of charcoaled beef and pork products, and give 'em lots of free stuff they'd normally kill for. We'll show these folks more fun than they've had since pulling those gay-marriage amendment levers back in '04. They'll be so drunk, bloated and exhausted that they'll have no desire or strength left to vote. -from the Ostroy Report ************************************************************* 05-12-06, 03:45 PM DorianGreyed "5,000 years of the history of civilization has taught them nothing."
You must remember that much of that time was spent running from dinosaurs. 05-12-06, 08:21 PM babthrower Distract the sadbrats is good. But unnecessarily expensive.
We could set up two websites, each referring visitors to the other.
Start it all off by sending one of those stupid "Okay now send this message to your fifty dearest friends" e-mails on the eve of the election.
Only right wing republicans actually pass them on. (The rest of us have an annoying habit of asking, "Why?")
Website 1 displays:
"Click here to record your disapproval for gay marriage. This message will go straight to your congressman." The click directs them to the second website.
Website 2 displays:
"Good, you've now recorded your disapproval for gay marrige. Now go to (otherrwebsite) and record your disapproval of sex education in schools."
Once in the loop, they would keep doing this over and over until the polls closed.
Repetition a problem? Naaaah. Illogical contradictions a problem? Naaah. These are guys that believe every word of the O.T.! ************************************************************* 05-12-06, 08:27 PM DorianGreyed I honestly think that many of those who supported bush in the last election will not vote Republican in 2006. Let them all vote, just this time, count all the votes and nothing else.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16740 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
AnswerPool.com 
