Infant Mortality in the United States is Surprisingly High
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2016
- Many more babies die in the United States than you might think. In 2014, more than 23,000 infants died in their first year of life, or about six for every 1,000 born. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 other industrialized nations do better than the United States at keeping babies alive.
Infant mortality is the topic of this week's Healthcare Triage.
This was adapted from a column Aaron wrote for the Upshot. Links to further reading and references can be found there: www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/ups...
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen -- Graphics
/ aaronecarroll
/ crashcoursestan
/ johngreen
/ olsenvideo
And the housekeeping:
1) You can support Healthcare Triage on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr Every little bit helps make the show better!
2) Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3) We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
![Eminem - Tobey (feat. Big Sean & Babytron) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9xn0OHEZZ8Q/mqdefault.jpg)
How about having some decent maternity leave?
+
Some evidence to show that this would help would be needed before companies are extorted to pay for their employees' family growth.
See: Every other country
Step Back History Just because they do it doesn't mean that is what is having the affect. Chile has maternity leave and worse infant mortality.
Gee, I wonder where new workers come from. Mexico?
Are there any connections between infant mortality and payed maternity live?
Exactly, in UK it is 20 weeks of payed maternity, Finland 18, Austria 30-36, Belgium 15 (correct me if I'm wrong about this numbers). Here in Poland I will have 52 weeks (ONE YEAR) of payed live if I decide to have a baby.
Not a bragging contest, but Estonia has paid leave for the last 3 months of pregnancy, paid maternity leave for 1,5 years and unpaid leave for another 1,5 years, plus child support from the state. They REALLY want us to have babies. (declining population)
***** Oh, I agree. Unfortunately most of our voting body and politicans do not.
Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen They have to split the time, or one parent can take it all. It is a percentage of your wage, so normally the lowet paid parent takes it all.
citation needed.
wouldn't having paid leave after the child is born account for this? its one of the differences between the countrys in the study.
I'm not sure which countries were included in the study, but most Western European countries also some form of state sponsored healthcare; be it something like the NHS here in the UK, or heavily subsidised insurance in Germany. Being able to take one's kids to the doctors as soon as there's a problem without having to choose between that and paying the rent almost certainly plays a role...
I think this should have been addressed too. I would also like to know if breast feeding versus formula might make a difference--I do not know if the other countries breast fed more, but I think it would make sense that mothers who can stay home with their babies would breast feed more than those who had to leave their babies in daycare. Putting a kid in daycare might have a negative impact too--kids sharing space with other kids spreads disease. These factors might also contribute to the higher mortality rate amongst single mothers versus married mothers: if the mother's partner can support the family with their income, the mother can stay home with their baby.
I believe HT has already done a video on breastfed vs formula, and if I recall correctly (I don't have a chance to go diving into the RUclips search engine right now), there's no significant difference between the two.
I'd definitely wager that lack of maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare, and lack of health care definitely causes this. I can imagine the exhaustion of working full time with a newborn could contribute to devastating accidents. Education is important too - there are so many things that are truly harmful to kids (not fear mongering harmful, actually harmful) that not enough parents know about. Like not putting your child's carseat on top of a shopping cart (it cannot lock and it can fall out). Not leaving a child asleep in their car seat too long (they can stop breathing), making sure car seats are properly installed, making sure no toys or pillows are in the crib, etc etc etc.
I don't know how that would effect sids, sudden dead, or accidents.
It was specifically stated that they didn't think this was an issue. It was accidents/sids/sudden death.
i wonder if states with tougher regulation on abortion have higher rates of infant mortality
They do.
They also have fewer benefits as well - it's not always about abortion rates specifically.
がに infanticide may play a part too, it use to be more common for a reason
But the lives saved in the womb *far* exceed the numbers who die outside the womb
I've heard that the infant mortality rate is high in the U.S., and this video showed me why. First off, I didn't know that the problem is shown to be after birth and not prenatal. Its cool to hear about all of these studies being done to try and find the problem. I do not know the reason for us ranking higher in postneonatal (the first year) mortality. The key thing I took away from this is that he said that healthcare couldn't do much about this issue. The authors of the study suggested more home nursing visits to reduce things like SIDS. But that still leaves the question that everyone wants to an answer to, how can we lower the death rate of infants in the U.S.?
Perhaps a policy of education with regards to infant care targeted towards first time or poorer mothers would be appropriate. that would require research into what constitutes proper infant care, but it could be very cheap to implement and effective.
Sounds like an argument for a Health Visiting service like in the UK to me. I never appreciated this kind of thing until I started working directly alongside them, they do all the vaccinations, run clinics, can refer to childcare services, and basically just act as a first point of contact for all children's parents from birth until they start school.
I wonder if circumcision affects infant mortality (even though the rate has dropped quite a bit now), because it's usually done without anesthetic and is incredibly painful and stressing.
I had three questions after this video:
1. Yours, about circumcision
2. Paid parental leave
3. Abortion rates/reasoning
None have been answered sufficiently. :\
A comparison with Israel (where obviously the vast majority of baby boys are circumcised) or comparing boys and girls should be enough evidence to indicate one way or another if circumcision would be a factor. Though I doubt the effects of stress from a procedure in the first weeks would be delayed until somewhere between 1 and 12 months.
Off topic, but the tie and shirt are very nice.
I'd like to know if there is any data looking at the impact of Paid Parental Leave on these numbers. It seems a reasonable hypothesis given the increase is seen predominantly after the one month of paid leave full time employees can usually be guaranteed in the US. And impacts the poor, who are unlikely to be able to have one parent stop working without pay, disproportionately.
The US doesn't have paid parental leave. All parental leave is unpaid unless the employer has a policy stating otherwise.
1 month paid leave? I wish! I've worked at large corporate and small businesses and none have had anything like that. 2 weeks if anything.
They really need to start differentiating between SIDS and suffocation deaths. Most deaths labeled SIDS are actually due to suffocation. If they did this, they would see how important it is to increase education in this area.
It makes sense to me that single moms have a higher incidence of infant mortality than married moms, because they are probably so exhausted they choose not to follow suffocation prevention methods (like not bringing the baby into bed with you). They are probably not as educated as well.
Wow. A lot of people do not understand poverty in the US very well. Good for them, I guess.
FWIW, education doesn't do you a whole lot of good when you don't have the resources to carry out those new-learned skills and ideas.
Three things that I can see as possible factors are the high child poverty rate (25%) in the US, the lack of paid parental leave, and the amount of paperwork required to access and maintain state-funded health insurance. A couple of those also contribute to low breastfeeding rates, especially among the disadvantaged, which might, in turn, contribute to higher infant mortality.
Infant formula is heavily subsidized by the government, which isn't by itself a bad thing. What is bad is that it results in lower spending on breastfeeding education and support for poor parents. But breast feeding is usually very inexpensive, so there isn't a lot of profit in it for big corporations, so we don't invest in it.
Aah, this is so frustrating! What are we doing wrong?! Is it paid maternity leave? Because the U.S. doesn't have that, unlike every other country in the world aside from like Papua New Guinea.
+
Many companies do have it. There's just not a Federal mandate that extorts money from companies to pay for their employees' family growth.
ZombieX13 Exactly - poorer women with lower incomes and less steady jobs don't have access to it. And it looks like it's poor families that have the increase in infant mortality.
Rebecca Johnson Yes but then shouldn't there be better decision made before incurring another family member? It seems people put more thought and preparation into buying a car than making a human.
ZombieX13 You can't accidentally buy a car, but you can accidentally get pregnant.
Any stats on how extended paid leave could influence infant mortality?
I heard another counter-argument which wasn't addressed in this video (as far as I noticed). The argument I heard was that in many European countries, babies who have issues in the womb are more likely to be aborted. In the US, for religious reasons, a lot of these babies are carried to term. This might explain the difference in mortality.
Can this explain the difference? Or has it been accounted for in the studies?
Good to know. Thanks. :) It would be nice to have some more data points, though. Anyone else know anything? Or know of any corroborating studies?
This is probably contributory, because if you break it down by state, the more "liberal" states have rates closer to Europe and the bible-bashing ones are much much worse (making the national average somewhere between).
This is probably contributory, because if you break it down by state, the more "liberal" states have rates closer to Europe and the bible-bashing ones are much much worse (making the national average somewhere between).
This is probably contributory, because if you break it down by state, the more "liberal" states have rates closer to Europe and the bible-bashing ones are much much worse (making the national average somewhere between).
In Italy it depends on the issue the baby has: If it is not going to survive then yes, you can have an abortion. With down syndrome or any other issue that does not affect survival it is very very very hard to get an abortion. The same for Germany, you need to be sure your kid will not survive or will be in such a state that a lifelong care is necessary (I am thinking zika babys) and you can have an abortion as soon as you find out. The question is: Does the US have screenings at the same rate as other countries that might bring up issues? He states that prenatal care is the same for all countries, still might be interesting to look into that.
In any case and as many stated downstairs before one factor that needs to be looked at is maternal leave. PAID maternal leave.
What about all the children who are murdered by abortion and birth control?
Feels like medical Crash Course, I like it.
JAMA pediatrics just released a report stating that many US parents are still putting infants to sleep in unsafe conditions (loose bedding, stuffed animals, crib bumpers, on their sides or stomachs). Do you think this is driving an increased incidence of SIDS and at least part of the overall increase in infant mortality?
AllegrettoATempo +
+Healthcare tirage how much of the difference between average life expectancy between Americans and Canadians is attributed to this?
I wouldn't be surprised that this is due to living conditions. Less money for safety measures such as safer cribs or baby gates. Less money for daycare leading to having to leave kids with less safe people as babysitters. Or just tired stressed out new parents who can't think straight through constant work shifts and late night feedings. If you can't afford to take time off work, it's harder to get the rest a new mother needs. Research should go into if the effect of programs like WIC relieving some of the financial burden on new parents is that it decreases the risk of infant mortality.
Wouldn't it be more prudent for people who can't afford children to not have them in the first place?
Prudence and reality don't always match up. Poorer people are less likely to have access to pregnancy prevention methods, and in many neighbor are less educated about sex in general. Many poor women feel obligated to "attach" themselves to a man in order to survive, since it's harder as a women to earn a living with less education. There is less options to defend against rape as a poor women, and less freedom to say "no" when this man is essentially feeding you and providing you with a home. Poor people are also more likely to be encouraged to "Settle down and start a family" as a means to survive, whereas in well to do families, they often (although not always) have more freedom to go to school or "become independent". To top all of this off, now many people in our country is trying to take away the few options poor women HAVE to say no to or to end a pregnancy. So putting the onus on the people to "Not get pregnant" is NOT a practical or "prudent" solution. We need to BOTH providing services to those who DO get pregnant AND ways to PREVENT pregnancy.
Pnospric +
I have a theory relating to this; there could be an additional factor in the mother's disposition. I have had to, on and off throughout my life, help take care of unwanted children. Unwanted in the sense that their mothers volenteerily had them but then did not want to invest the amount of time to properly raise the child.
These women did love their children, but I would usually end up caring for them because the state had determined the living environment was not safe enough or they had developed an illness out of neglect.
A common pattern was that once the child was around 8 or 10 years old they were able to thrive with their biological parents. The key factor was the child being old enough to advocate for themself; being able to bathe themself, either make their own food or find another avenue to finding someone who could provide them with food. These kids loved their parents, and their parents loved them, but the main problem seemed to come down to the parent not being dedicated early on to caring for a helpless infant / toddler. Once the child was old enough to meet their base needs the parent's neglect was no longer hampering their development.
you don't have paid maternal leave. that is the main difference between the US and western europe. moms that can be with their kids all day can tend to them properly and spot trouble faster. having to go to work, worry about keeping a steady income coming and leaving kids to the care of relatives or nannies surely contributes to less than optimal care given to the infant.
The Vaccines and Air pollution and raidiowaves .
Are there studies of infant deaths between 1815-1860? in the northern and southern states?
In the United States really high by European standards, the infant mortality rate of 5.87 per 1,000 live births, compared to France's 3.28 per 1,000 live births, and in Japan 2.08 per 1,000 live births. The highest infant mortality rates in the world 100 children per 1,000 live births in Afghanistan.
Infant mortality in the United States, 5.87 in 1000 is not much lower than in the Ukraine 8.12 per 1,000 live births. In Ukraine and in the United States, doctors are obliged to nurse all the children born from 25 weeks of development. In Japan, doctors are obliged to nurse all the children born from 22 weeks of development.
Also in the US abortion rate is higher than in Ukraine. United States 15.7 abortions per 1,000 women, Ukraine 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women.
GDP per person per year in the US 56,084 dollars, infant mortality 5,87 per 1,000 live births. In Ukraine, GDP per capita in the year 7,984 dollars, infant mortality is 8.12 per 1,000 live births. In Japan, GDP per person per year 38,148 dollars, the infant mortality rate of 2.08 per 1,000 live births.
Is U.S. Health Care Less Efficient than Other Countries’ Systems?" is a good article on this subject. It notes the fact that the US has a higher rate of low birth weight babies than Europe, and the deaths of fragile babies are counted as infant deaths in the US, but not in Europe. Adjusting for these things, the article notes "Atlas reports several calculations of this type, showing that the U.S. infant mortality, adjusted in this manner, is quite low, comparable to Canada’s, Sweden’s, and Norway’s."
What is that behind your right shoulder?
The current culture of our country is why the infant mortality is so surprisingly high. Our culture now teaches kids about sex at very young age. This has led to kids now having sex at a very young age, sometimes before they're even teenagers. Although they learn about sex at an early age, children are still stupid about the way they have sex and do not take precautions to protect against pregnancy. Young kids/teens being afraid to tell their parents about being pregnant, and not knowing what to do if they have the kid is why the mortality rate of infants is so high in the United States.
I had heard that much of our infant mortality was due to our increased use of fertility treatments. These sometimes result in a mother having a large number of babies at once which puts them in more danger right?
Is there no data on this one way or the other?
Huh it may be due to information availability, the skills and resources of the people who care for infants, which are hard to solve.
Why does the United States have such a higher amount of infant mortality rates than other countries? This is something that I think is very interesting to look at. As mentioned in this video it was said that in 2014 over 23,000 babies died in their first year of life. According to the CDC, 25 nations are doing better than the United States in keeping babies alive. a misconception is that high infant morality rates is based upon the prenatal care given, but new studies found that it is not true. It was actually found that the problem is what happens after birth. Something that interested me was that African American infants had twice as much chance of dying as Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. So what can influence these high infant mortality rates? According to this video things such as age, marriage, and at which child you are giving birth to play a factor. Women who are under the age of 20 and over the age of 40 have a higher risk of their child passing. For the women having children under the age of 20, this can be prevented in a number of ways because not only is it dangerous for the baby but it is also dangerous for the women who are having babies so young. A couple things that can prevent this is contraception such as birth control or condoms, but also abstinence. Contraception is the more common one these days, but a lot of times these aren't being used. If more women under the age of 20 found a contraception that works for them, there would be a less amount of unplanned babies being born bringing down the high infant morality rate too. As for the women over the age of 40, there is also high risks for other issues in infants along with death. One thing is down syndrome. As women get older in age, they have a lot more risks when having a child. Although some women don't get to have the chance to have a baby before the age of 40, they really should try to so that they can avoid these risks. It is very interesting to see that your martial status has an effect on infant morality rate. This could be because with only one parent, it is much more difficult to take care of the baby and also work to provide a comfortable lifestyle for that baby. Studies were looked at to see if income had an affect on infant mortality rate. When looking at the study, there was no difference in high-income family in the number of death of those who had fewer or more visits according to this video. A solution to this problem as discussed, is more at-home health visits to prevent SIDS and sudden deaths. I think this is an issue that should be more looked into, so that the United States can lower their infant mortality rate.
So the difference starts from the age of 1 month until the age of 1 year old.
Seems that it could be the healthcare system. I mean, if you don't got much money you don't go to the doctor or a lot later then someone who can go for 'free'. That does play into account, not only for babies but for adults as well.
For example: I have seen quite some things about diabetes patients in the US needing amputations, because of their sugar going crazy, because they do not take medicines. That's something that just as good as never happens over here.
Mimou +
wait a second! you need to do a video on this "standard value" of 7 million for a human life I want to know how they came to that figure
I don't get it, average american individual income of roughly 35K/year and a working life of roughly 20-65 only yields a value of 1575000
doesn't make any sense at all
Not 35K a year for the entirety of their life though, cuz inflation and cost of living increases and such.
***** I actually took 35K specifically to inflate that number, the actual value I think is somewhere between 32 and 34, and you don't earn that much for your entire life. I treated it as the moment you got out of work you started earning that much but that's plainly false, you start with shit paying jobs, so there's a several year period where you're earning significantly less than 35k.
But even with my massaging of the numbers I couldn't get 7mil.
Maybe I'm underestimating the power of the exponent here but 7m seems unachievable.
In a capitalist society you do not earn the value of your work. If you would, then how could the capitalist you work for accumulate money to make his/her business grow, create more jobs, etc.? Therefore (among other reasons), salary is not a good way to calculate your economic value.
You earn a portion of the value of your work as you've used the capitalists capital to make your work more valuable.
given that the first S in SIDS stands for "sudden".. it still begs the question.. why all of a sudden do some infants die and others do not? what exactly is going on? are there any epidemiological studies to shed light on this question? physiological reasoning? and how do these accidents most commonly occur? because until these basic questions are answered.. any proposed solution is just guessing in the dark..
It might be cost effective...
If we consider the lives of these infants to be worth 7 million. Unless I misunderstood that last part.
And we don't generally consider a human life to be worth much more than 2-3 millions, if we look at drug coverage in general (except for cancer drugs, which for some reason fetch a much higher $/QALY ratio, but that's a whole other topic).
NOT THE CHILDREN!
maybe it is because america dosn´t have paid maternity leave?
+
Many companies do because it's what people want. There's just not a Federal mandate to extort companies for their employees' family growth.
It is believed that humans figured out that sex and reproduction were related back about the time that dogs were domesticated. They weren't real sure of the exact mechanics of it for another few thousand years but they were getting the basic cause and effect. Yet somehow today we can't seem to make a connection between poor people having kids they can't support and continued poverty, or that behavior's effect on bad things happening to children. On nearly a daily basis we see media stories about how "bad" people are expected to live completely celibate lives while other stories tell "good" people that it's perfectly acceptable for them to not be able to control their urges to the point that its considered "bad" to tell them otherwise. The primary reason infant mortality is so high in the US is because we tell poor people that it is their right to run around going at it like dogs in heat while only really advocating for post copulation birth control that they can't afford anyway.
“In 2014, more than 23,000 infants died in their first year of life, or about six for every 1,000 born.” These numbers are extremely high for our country when we claim to have so much technology that should help us keep these babies alive. The U.S is one of the most advanced countries compared to others therefore we should have better statistics. When in reality other countries have a lower mortality rate than other countries. It is important that we figure out the reasoning behind the high rate of infant mortality to get this number lower. There could be a correlation between the income of the parents and the rate of mortality, maybe parents who have less money don’t have the means to care for their babies. Or they are purely just incompetent parents and don’t really know how to take care of a child to begin with, either way, the rate needs to be lowered. “Moms younger than 20 or older than 40 have children with a higher infant mortality”, this could also be a cause. Mothers who are young and not ready to have babies may not have the means to take care of the baby. On the same hand, mothers who are older than 40 are most likely past the age for a healthy pregnancy and are more likely to have problems.
“Unmarried moms have a greater than 70% higher rate of death in their kids compared to married moms” this could also be another cause because mothers that have to take care of a baby and provide for herself while keeping them both healthy can extremely hard. Another thought is that, could these be tied into preventable errors made by hospital staff and doctors? Its more likely than not that there was a mistake made in the care of newborn babies that resulted in death.
Love show
i blame no vaccination
Totally depends on the disease, when vaccinated and if the mother breastfeeds (the mother will transfer antibodies for certain diseases by breastfeeding).
Not only does not vaccinating a child contribute to the high infant mortality rate in the United States, but there is also the living standards, and even not giving the correct amount of care. Many people that are not financially stable enough are having children and not being able to support them. There are issues of starvation and disease that come with this living situation as well. People in general need proper hygiene let alone a newborn baby. Putting them in dirty clothes, leaving them in dirty diapers, et cetera can really harm a newborn. Being financially stable can also come into play when it comes to the correct care as well. Babies need food, occasionally medicine, and even love. When a mother has to go back to work immediately to support the family, the baby may not get the correct attention it needs. Someone may forget to check on him/her leaving the newborn susceptible to situations like SIDs or sudden infant death symptom. Many people don't even know what that is and doctors don't know what exactly can cause SIDs. There has been thoughts that numerous things can cause this like bundling the baby up too much causing him/her to overheat, or even leaving the baby to sleep on their stomachs. So ultimately many things contribute to the United States high infant mortality rates.
Becca Yeo Okay we get you but not all vaccinations are created equal. so people need to get a suitable vaccine for each individual not a herd.
ihartevil "the flu is proven to not even exist" please be a troll--i don't want to believe someone actually thinks that.
The babies dying are vaccinated! Un-vaxxed babies are super healthy - they don't have asthma, excema, ear infections, jaundice, ensepholitis, seizures, ticks or food allergies and when they do get sick they are over it in days not weeks. Also when they do go to school they typically do not have sick days. "Vaxxed TV" has hundreds of interviews with parents who have half their kids vaccinated and half unvaccinated - they see the truth in front of their eyes.
As a highly developed country, it seems that the United States would have lower rates of infant mortality, therefore the high rate of infant deaths is very surprising. In order to combat this rate, information about the proper care of infants should be provided to mothers, especially those within the groups whose children experience higher rates of infant mortality. New mothers should be educated on the guidelines that will help to prevent SIDS, such as removing everything from cribs except a firm mattress and tight fitting sheet, or keeping infants from sleeping in swings, or resting in car seats on the ground. Without the proper muscles developed to move away from things such as crib bumpers or the ability to hold their head up in a car seat, infants face the risk of suffocation. However, for some new mothers this may not be common knowledge. In order to provide the best care for infants, information concerning proper infant care should be easily accessible to mothers. Also, it is important that new mothers and family members are fully aware of what the new baby can handle. This means making sure proper nutrition is provided (not providing foods that the babies palate is not developed to handle yet), and keeping the babies body safe, for example by never shaking the baby. This does not explain why the US infant mortality rate is higher than other countries, but by increasing the knowledge of care for infants, a giant step will be take towards decreasing that rate.
I like that you took on this topic although it seems to me you spend too much time on ethnic groups studies which can show statistical data but doesnt really help. The problem is, in my opinion, mostly with the US healthcare system which is by nature unfair and also the infrastructure for neonatologic care is disparate (regions with great care vs much more regions with subpar care) and I feel these or other views which, when it comes to seeking improvement, arent really touched in the videos - only looking at numbers comparin EU and US but not the reasons.
The problem is "active labor management" rather than let birth happen and stop treating women like they're sick when admitted when their pregnancies were unremarkable.
Carroll goes through the rundown of infant mortality, and how it is becoming increasingly higher as years go by. I found that there can be many reasons for a rise in mortality rates for babies. Some things that come into effect are living conditions. While there is a lot of poor people in the united states, poor people are not able to pay for contraceptives and are more likely to get pregnant because of this. Also, poor people are unable to find a good living condition and usually end up living on the streets. Also, poor people, as well as people in the middle class are unable to pay for things like a daycare or babysitters that are decent. They are then forced to bring their child to an unsafe environment. This puts the babies life in danger. Also, many people that are on the poorer end of the pay scale have babies and are working full-time to support their child. Constantly working can put a large amount of stress on the parent and they can forget about nightly feedings. I believe that our healthcare system still needs to become more advanced. Creating a system where more doctors are able to be trained by older, experienced doctors will help the country lower this rating. I am confused why our country has such a good advanced healthcare system, but we still have such a high mortality rate. Can this be due to other factors like mothers age? Or the amount of food she consumes in one day? I think that our science industry should never slow down, coming up with more cures and then to create a way to prevent illnesses is the best way.
23,000 infants have died in their first year! Some interesting things to take into account is Mothers age, Number of children Calorie intake during pregnancy. More infants die in premature birth than any other cause. But the United States health care system is more advance then many younger, less financial countries. This makes it seem a lot easier for us to care for infants but does not mean that are invincible to all other forms of illnesses. Other likely causes of deaths are accidents and SIDS. Does it seem right though to allow children out of the hospital that could have an illness that we know about? And will a house nurse be all that is required to save an infant? Advancement in infant care may even take a turn for the worse due to lack of research in the subject. Is research on infants killing more than it seems? Lastly, can this research lead to a change of infant mortality and health around the world?
Micro-data is better for exfoliating.
What about poverty? From a sociological perspective, it'd make a lot of sense, especially considering the non-hispanic black majority of infant mortality.
Hallslys that’s the thing even in 3rd world countries the Infant morality is less than America.
(0:15) "25 other industrialized nations do better than the U.S. at keeping babies alive." Do any non-industrialized nations do better than the U.S. at keeping babies alive? Are there any non-industrialized nations?
I honestly have never heard of infant mortality until I watched this video. The fact that in 2004 more that 23,000 infants died in their first year of life is sad. However I found that some of the reasons behind why are very understandable. for example, moms younger than twenty or older than forty have children with higher infant mortality. This seem likely because before twenty, the boy is not fully developed or ready to carry a baby. That's why a lot of teenagers that have babies, their babies are premature. Once a person reach forty, their body is no longer in the right shape to carry a baby. I wonder why other industrialized nations do better than the united states at keeping their babies alive? Is it because of the united States, or the mothers of the babies?
I agree that the main cause of infant mortality among newborn is premature birth. When a baby in not carried to full term they are less likely to survive. One being they are not always full developed, and two being they were not ready for life outside the whom. I did not know that first babies have a higher chance of death than later siblings. I understand this being possible due to the fact that after the first child, the body then knows what to do for any future children. I do not think that Black women are more likely to have a premature baby then White women. However if a scientific study was done and provided facts of how the genetics of a black women affect their babies to be premature, than I'll believe it.
i blame cocaine on the higher premature births in 'merica
This is poetic; after all the efforts the anti-choicers have gone through to force unwantted pregnacies to go foward! 😊
Why are there so many babies dying they are the future and will shape the world to come
Well the video states a couple of options one being the fact that women having babies before 20 years old and after 40 years old have a harder time keeping the baby once its born. The other option comes down to when the kid was born, if the baby isnt the first born then has less of a possible chance of surviving. Then there is the fact that marriage makes a giant difference. if the mom is unmarried its rough for a mom to take care of a baby more.
tj mccormick, as well as woman and there Heath could be a factor as they can smoke and drink which could effect the baby in many ways
Yeah I see what you mean. I didnt think about that being a complete problem to the babies health. I havent really followed this for long so thank you for you comments. How do you keep finding me anyway?
At 6:31, you say deaths in the neonatal period "occur disproportionately in poor women". Huh?
It's very telling that the statement makes the infant and the mother inseparable. They are distinct people, you know.
It also seems to suggest mothers are solely responsible and/or affected by an infant's death.
I wonder how many studies correlate infant mortality with fathers?
Maybe part of the USA's problem with infant mortality is this blasé exclusion of fathers as a factor in a child's health.
+
Can this be related to the minimal maternity leave laws in the United States, especially since that would also disproportionately affect poor women?
Fucking good; there are enough of the little shits already. It's probably people who can't afford them in the first place. #darwin
Racism. That probably explains this. I'll think of a way.
Or we could stop paying poor women to have kids and get them to use contraception...
Nope. We need more consumers with frail bodies so all markets are going to be able to sell more stuff.
Most other industrialized countries provide more 'welfare' than the U.S.. It seems likely that includes many of those countries that do a better job of keeping babies alive, so your plan doesn't sound viable.
Also we stop paying them if the kid dies, so it seems like if they were just in it for the money they'd already have a pretty strong incentive to keep the kids alive.
If one kid dies they can easily make another. It's also used as a recreational activity in some circles.
***** I don't think a reasonable person would describe going through pregnancy as "easy" but even in your crazy world it wouldn't be any easier to have a second baby if the first one died, and two kids generates more income, so there's still an incentive to keep kids alive.
Look, I understand it's easier to let people suffer if you can convince yourself that they're monsters who deserve it, but could you at least try to make your ridiculous disregard for other people's humanity logically consistent?
James huber
So wanting to change policies to reduce the rate of single-parent and poor households is disregarding humanity? Okay.
You, uh, sound pretty happy about this.
ooorrrr trying to engage an audience through a statistics breakdown about dead babies.
so babies with ignorant or neglectful parents are dieing... darwin at work here.
Ignorance and neglectfulness aren't hereditary.
in part they may be.
Dylan T If you watched the video, you'll see that poverty is a large factor.
He's accusing those who're poor to be neglectful or ignorant for even giving birth while poor.
It isn't? The Humane Society won't let you adopt a pet if they think you can't provide a good home, why is it such a horrible thing to have at least those standards for bringing a child into the world?
Could be reporting differences. A couple years ago I read something that suggested certain countries aren't reporting deaths as infant mortality numbers up to a couple days after birth especially if the infant had very low chances of surviving. I tried finding the article again but I can't remember much else about it.
Also the United States sits in an odd place of conservative anti-abortion religiosity and the culturally liberal idea of the genitals are play things. The conflicting views could be causing hidden pregnancies and/or avoiding abortion.
I'm absolutely amazed (and horrified) how comments down here are AGAINST giving women payed maternity leave. it's disgusting.
This horse hockey is based on extremely flawed data, especially on an international basis. For example, in some countries, children who died in the first month after birth are not included in infant mortality statistics. In many countries, still births are not included in infant mortality statistics and, more generally, there are no consistent set of standards and measures, internationally that consistently account for everything from miscarriages through infancy.
If anything, the US sets a much higher bar for these metrics and until the rest of the world sets a similar standard, information like this is not useful at best, dangerously misleading at worst Personally, I find it yet another disgusting attempt to bring the world's most advanced medical care system (in terms of results) down in terms of popular opinion, ultimately to promote a more insidious and highly political agenda.
A pox on your house...
Did you watch the video? The mortality rate is still high for a first world country after you adjust for the differences in statistics collection.
It's the same old saw roundly debunked over many years. There are isolated demographic factors that skew statistics locally but in total, the USA is no worse than on par with the rest of the "First World" and likely far better if analyzed objectively.
While there may be factors that aren't being included, the ones you mention were taken into account by the studies concerned. So no, that isn't it.
In fact, based on what was said in the video, it's pretty clear that it has less to do with medical care than what happens after 1 month, largely at home. After all, we give plenty of pre-natal care compared to other countries, and our NICUs are top notch.
Regarding your general claim about the US system though: The US is the best healthcare system in the world, as long as you're rich. For the poor, it's significantly below average, on account of it also being the most inefficient healthcare system in the west. It does depend on the particular area you focus on, though -- certain things are the best here, period. Others are better elsewhere. All of this is based on widespread data that is easily accessed. It's only controversial if you are biased and unwilling to accept that there might be areas in need of improvement.
Correct, and the demographic factors, referred to earlier, are largely socio-economic and cultural.
The US healthcare system is the best and, if you insist, the most expensive. The worst healthcare in the world tends to be where it's "free". In the US, our social engineers just have not yet finished the job of ruining it here so they can then make it "free" and mediocre like most everywhere else.
This is a small apart of the reason I am pro choice.