Welcome to the safest time to give birth in human history
theupwing.com
theupwing.com
Infant mortality is rising and births are plummeting. This is the legacy of 14 years of Tory cruelty
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/0...
‘Cruelty’ is a very emotive word obviously.
No, I care more and am thoroughly disgusted about the fact a fundamental thing as childbirth is used for political points.
To be honest, safety of childbirth in the public health system is as political as it gets.
If the current government (either on purpose or by incompetence) made the public health system worse for childbirth, they should absolutely be held accountable by entities such as newspapers. Hell, it's one of the main reasons newspapers exist, to held governments accountable.
Your points make no sense.
“Economists across the west are alarmed by falling birthrates, which makes the two-child benefits limit peculiarly vindictive.”
BUT
The best thing to do for the planet is have one less child.
There have only been 3 year on year rises between 1980 and 2014 (increases of 0.1, 0.1 and 0.2 infant deaths per 1000 live births) [1].
Since then, there have been 2 sustained rises over several years, totalling 0.3 in each case. The second of which is ongoing and could continue to rise - we lack data from 2023.
These are anomalous given the decades long downward trend in this type of mortality.
(There are other very significant issues in maternal healthcare from the same period. A corresponding upward trend in maternal mortality in recent years [2]. And black women in the UK are nearly four times more likely than white women to die within six weeks of giving birth, based on figures from 2018-2020.)
Call it what you want, but outcomes surrounding a basic biological function getting worse after 14 years of control by a single party in one of the richest countries in the world is worth covering.
This isn't partisan politics either. Compare these non-opinion headlines from the famously left-leaning (sic) Telegraph:
- 2011 - Infant mortality falls by 60 per cent in a generation [3] - 2024 - British infants more likely to die before first birthday than those in other developed countries [4] > The UK’s global ranking has gradually fallen from 23rd in 2015 when the infant mortality rate was 3.9 deaths per 1,000 births. While other countries improved, Britain’s rate stagnated before it fell during the pandemic back to figures not seen since 2012.
Even though they ultimately will tend to point the blame in different directions, they are reporting the same underlying story.
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q62
[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8388584/Infant-...
[4] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/05/british-infants-...
Looking at the data, the UK rate has been decreasing overtime but has plateaued in recent years and slight fluctuations could be noise. For most of the past 6 decades it has been decreasing steadily but at a decreasing rate.
It also appears different countries count infant mortality differently. Some have cut offs where they consider the live birth to be a still birth for reporting purposes. So it’s not a apples to apples comparison between countries.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?end=2022...
On a side note, a friend of mine is a neonatal intensive care doctor. The majority of the infants they care for have issues due to heavy drug use during pregnancy. So at least in my country this has a large impact on infant mortality.
Is there any reason why that shouldn't be (or isn't?) prosecuted under child abuse and/or neglect?
I'm all for people doing whatever the fuck they want within the confines of the law they reside in, but that buck stops where the human rights of another begins.
What most junkie parents need is practical help, so they can have a rehab, not prosecution.
But it is hard to tell in hindsight, how a children would have grown up different. I know some, who turned out quite well, despite all this. You couldn't tell by the looks and behavior that their mother was drugged at birth (and before and after).
Much more important are stable social conditions. A junkie mother who loves her children and is there for them at least some of the time is way better than no mother and just distant social case workers to whom the children are just a job. (Some are doing a great job with love, but they ain't the majority around here)
But there definitely also are cases of disabilites, that are very likely drug induced.
https://www.britishjournalofmidwifery.com/content/legal/shou...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5151516/
I like this take:
> Viewing these cases as potential criminal offences will do nothing for the health of women and their babies. There is a strong public interest in promoting the good health of pregnant women and babies, but, as longstanding government policy recognises, this interest is best served by treating addiction and substance abuse in pregnancy as a public health, not criminal issue.
Another aspect I'm almost sure affects babies is alcohol / drug use by either parent prior to conception. In the months prior if the father or mother consume drugs, you will have a negative impact on your child, and nobody gets prosecuted, because nobody can tell you're 10% dumber or 15% more anxious for your whole life due to it.
It's all in the framing.
Between 2000 and 2017, the global maternal mortality rate fell by 38%. In low-income countries, the decline was more dramatic still, with a reduction of 46%.
They used the lagging gains that finally arrived in lower income countries to boost overall stats - and thereby avoided discussing trends in high income countries.
And lagging trends between poorer and richer countries is still a thing.
Having hit their possible peaks, poorer countries should continue to follow wealthy countries and plateau next.
If they follow (growing) western trends to unwind programs that bring healthcare to the poor, a reduction in healthy birthrates seems inevitable.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
To be fair that's an opinion piece.
It's sad as the hospitals do so much to a high standard but they surround their core processes with a low quality support that quickly undermines the good work.
From my many experiences over the last few years visiting friends/relatives in hospital, a huge number of tasks are messed up by overstretched low level staff.
Just one recent example, a lady in the bed next to a relative had been admitted with a serious infection, purely for an IV drip for antibiotics as she couldn't keep the tablet form down - she was sent by her GP and this should have been routine but due to hospital communication mix-ups they wouldn't give it and she deteriorated over five days whilst they did nothing but a few basic tests, all the time in discomfort for something that could've been resolved easily.
Underfunding is the cause but the cure will need not just money but a return to rigour, attention to detail and a focus on communication.
Do you think there is anywhere on earth where it's more dangerous to give birth now than a hundred years ago?
I'm all for choice, but I'm also for absolute clarity in such statements, and absolutely against any phrasing, for any issue, that is crafted to cause misunderstanding, and an even worse interpretation of the facts.
Do you have any case law to support this being a valid concern?
The particular issue is that currently it's an actual legal minefield for doctors in a number of those states due to vague definitions, over zealous prosecutors, and relatively tight time limits.
This article:
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-revie...
appears to give a good overview of the state of affairs.
For now at least the real danger is doctors being unwilling to risk their licence and making borderline calls in many situations with a ticking clock.
> at least be able to provide a reference to a controversial prosecution.
Why? This is all relatively recent changes, there are doctors on record saying they've been unwilling to perform abortions for a variety of reasons and at risk of the mothers health.
That doesn't at all imply the necessity for the existence of a prosecution - but it does woman's health is suffering due to fear of prosecution.
As far as I know there have been zero controversial prosecutions resulting from this change, so all you’ve managed to provide is somebody’s speculation that it might turn into a legal hazard at some time in the future. Given how massively politicised this issue is, I think it would be pretty stupid to just accept people’s baseless speculations as fact.
The claim is made in the brief linked. I am not one of the authors of the brief linked.
> As far as I know there have been zero controversial prosecutions resulting from this change
Which proves nothing with respect to the matter of Doctors stating they've been unwilling to risk prosecution.
Hyperbole is what this paper likely is engaging in. It's certainly presenting a "worst case scenario" examination. And even if not, it's only presenting possible issues.
Issues which may or may not come up, and all of these states have differing legislation.
> only later to say "Well, actually, I meant this single, one paper claims that."
I certainly referred to that paper. I did not make the claim that you're asserting via paraphrasing my comment.
> Hyperbole is what this paper likely is engaging in.
In your opinion. An opinion you seem uncertain about. By my reading it presents as measured and as quoting the actual concerns of actual people.
> Issues which may or may not come up,
All the issues raised do indeed come up in real life - medical cases can get messy and mother | child health issues are not always as neat, well packaged, and clear cut as some seem to think.
There are always edge cases in any given state in any given month.
Don't take my word for it, go and ask several practicsing OBGYN's.
Do try and avoid the likes of Dr. Christina Francis & Co. who appear comfortable dodging and outright misleading the US Senate: https://youtu.be/T-5Gym8Mq1Y?t=104 & t=168
Further: https://www.murray.senate.gov/senator-murrays-opening-remark...
> She discovered the issue and had the procedure scheduled before I even arrived at the hospital.
> Because this is a routine medical procedure in every country that has any sort of healthcare system.
Things like zika aside, there's never been a better time to give birth at planet scale.
(Also ignoring post birth risk of war, famine and global warming)
21st century demographics will be a tough cookie to crack.