Its dangerous to be a mom in America

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I think it is an issue for anyone below 39 weeks. The trend is so severe, I've heard of policies requiring them to wait until week 39.

The doctors here would not even think of induceing any sooner than 40 weeks...

Unless there was a medical problem of course...

[alienlovechild 75]

Why should this report explain anything about why the US fared 'worse than expected'? It's not in the remit of the report to make any judgments as to whether x country performed better or worse than any preconceived expectation of yours, or anyone else's for that matter.

You seem to be taking this as a personal affront instead of a useful tool in improving the health and welfare of children - how bizarre is that?

A report that explains nothing is useless as you can't take steps to fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is.

Try reading sandinista's post which actually describes why conditions are different here and it has nothing to do with anything personal. Where do come with such nonsense?

[Peikko 1,575]

A report that explains nothing is useless as you can't take steps to fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is.

Try reading sandinista's post which actually describes why conditions are different here and it has nothing to do with anything personal. Where do come with such nonsense?

The report is useful in many ways, it just doesn't say what you want it to say.

I read her post, and while I am sure that some of the mortality rates can be put down to these factors, to say 'most' and not provide any statistical evidence for that claim - and throwing money at the problem? How is prematurity and and multiple births a problem that money can solve anyway?

[sandinista! 1,816]

the link in my post, links to a story full of links stating where the data comes from. that's why i put the link in there. also from that same link-

According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.

prior to the study done that debunked the prematurity prevention strategies, it was widely believed that they would make a difference. like i posted before, "enhanced prenatal care, improved maternal nutrition, treatment of vaginal infections, better maternal dental care, monitors to detect early labor, bed rest, better hydration, and programs for smoking cessation" were thought to be likely factors. and it made sense at the time. do you really have a hard time understanding how researchers might have thought that better prenatal care and improving pregnant women's health status might possibly be related to preventing babies being born too soon?

the rest of the story i linked to is pretty informative as well. it discusses how the nicu has evolved in the past several years in this country, and how those changes, even though more money is being spent, is not necessarily leading to better outcomes for babies.

Edited May 5, 2010 by sandinista!

[mawilson 2,133]

And yet, despite all the "danger", people breed more in this country than they do in Estonia where it's oh so safe to breed.

[Heracles 417]

I like statistics when they prove how I feel, that Australia is the better choice when Tony and I decide to have kids:

"Norway headed the list of developed countries at the top of the list of best places to be a mother, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany."

Plus my mum will really appreciate being with me whilst I'm pregnant and I'll appreciate her support to. Now I just need to figure out my baby timeline taking into consideration my immigration status... I want to be a USC so I can stay in Aus while pregnant etc and possibly do Tony's Aussie immigration stuff while pregnant/raising the baby

Don't forget the $5k tax free baby bonus.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Don't forget the $5k tax free baby bonus.

You don't get it in one lump sum anymore (at least in vic) it's given in fortnightly payments 'cause parents were spending it on new TV's etc

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Do NOT hijack this thread for another discussion on illegal immigration. Any further posts that try to steer this topic off course into another illegal immigration discussion will also be removed.

Post containing an inappropriate comment has been removed. The acceptable part of the post is returned below:

Booyah:

The Top 10 Places to be a Mother:

1. Norway

2. Australia

3. Iceland

4. Sweden

5. Denmark

6. New Zealand

7. Finland

8. The Netherlands

9. Belgium

10. Germany

The 10 Worst Places to be a Mother:

1. Afghanistan

2. Niger

3. Chad

4. Guinea-Bissau

5. Yemen

6. Democratic Republic of Congo

7. Mali

8. Sudan

9. Eritrea

10. Equatorial Guinea

[Heracles 417]

Do NOT hijack this thread for another discussion on illegal immigration. Any further posts that try to steer this topic off course into another illegal immigration discussion will also be removed.

Post containing an inappropriate comment has been removed. The acceptable part of the post is returned below:

Actually, I was responding to his comment regarding who is birthing the majority of children in the United States. It certainly isn't those of us that are upper middle class. We I just pay for them

Edited May 6, 2010 by Booyah!

[Peikko 1,575]

the link in my post, links to a story full of links stating where the data comes from. that's why i put the link in there. also from that same link-

According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.

prior to the study done that debunked the prematurity prevention strategies, it was widely believed that they would make a difference. like i posted before, "enhanced prenatal care, improved maternal nutrition, treatment of vaginal infections, better maternal dental care, monitors to detect early labor, bed rest, better hydration, and programs for smoking cessation" were thought to be likely factors. and it made sense at the time. do you really have a hard time understanding how researchers might have thought that better prenatal care and improving pregnant women's health status might possibly be related to preventing babies being born too soon?

the rest of the story i linked to is pretty informative as well. it discusses how the nicu has evolved in the past several years in this country, and how those changes, even though more money is being spent, is not necessarily leading to better outcomes for babies.

Sorry, I didn't see the link. Interesting article.

What it is basically saying is that in the US fertility treatment is widely available, and one of the inevitable outcomes of fertility treatment is premature birth. Premature birth babies have higher mortality rates and ICU treatment is difficult and expensive. It is not clear however why fertility treatment necessarily results in premature birth, except in the instances of multiple birth when prematurity is more common anyway. The part about the better outcomes when ICU care is concentrated into clusters is also interesting, and rather argues against the way US health care is organized, at least in so far as preemie care is concerned.

The article tells us that there are ways to increase positive outcomes, but it would take a restructuring of preemie care - and a willingness to change. Sadly, that isn't going to happen because there is no incentive in the current organization of health care to do that - or at least that is my conclusion.

I am curious as to why the article fails to mention anything about the causes of the minimum 50% of the infant mortality figures which are not related to fertility treatment or prematurity.

Nevertheless, even while it can be said that at least 1/3 of infant mortality is down to the success of US health care (in providing so many couples with opportunities to have babies than they would have had before) it is not clear to me that that is ultimately the reason for these poor outcomes. Are they suggesting that other wealthy countries simply do not offer these fertility treatments? Certainly that's something that should be considered - particularly if it can be found that other countries have more success with preemie care - and at a lower cost (we know it has to be a lower cost because there is no denying the reality that the per capita spending on health care in every other first world nation is lower than it is in the US - and considerably lower at that.)