6 ms·
Welcome to the safest time to give birth in human history
- beretguy 2y agoIf you are not in US.
- vincent9874 2y ago[dead]
- reify 2y agoNot according to the Guardian 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/07/infant-mortality-births-children-tory-government https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/0...
- dayjaby 2y ago"Safest time to GIVE birth"
- makomk 2y agoIt seems like the Guardian is spreading misinformation for election reasons anyway, judging from the comments - the increase in infant mortality it claims is well within the range of normal year-to-year variation, which is presumably also why an article that claims it's the "legacy of 14 tears of Tory cruelty" uses a claimed increase over just one year.
- lostlogin 2y agoHow would you describe the effects on the NHS of 14 years of Tory rule? ‘Cruelty’ is a very emotive word obviously.
- Dalewyn 2y agoHonestly, I don't care one way or another whether it's safer to give birth now than before (that said, it probably is in 99% of cases). No, I care more and am thoroughly disgusted about the fact a fundamental thing as childbirth is used for political points.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- surgical_fire 2y ago> 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.
- gizajob 2y agoThe guardian is spreading loony-leftist misinformation on a permanent basis, never mind the election. It’s like standing on shifting sands that one really does have to be a seriously critical thinker to see through. Reading it is a recipe for becoming mind-addled, probably more mind-addled than reading the Daily Mail which at least is obvious in its simple right-wing messaging. Plus, there’s a reason why The Guardian is free… (said as someone who reads it daily).
- gizajob 2y agoPlus I’m already getting downvoted but case in point from even the two articles posted in this thread, in terms of shifting sands of Hegelian contradiction which it peddles. “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.
- tweetle_beetle 2y agoIt's not as clear cut as you are making out and I would suggest that you are spreading your own misinformation. 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/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2022#trends-in-child-and-infant-mortality https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q62 https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q62 [3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8388584/Infant-mortality-falls-by-60-per-cent-in-a-generation.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8388584/Infant-... [4] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/05/british-infants-likely-die-before-first-birthday-report/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/05/british-infants-...
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoOpinion column, and the paper's bias aligns with their claim. More internet literacy needed!
- teruakohatu 2y agoI was interested in that article’s claim as a 8% rise in a year seems high. 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&locations=GB&start=1960&view=chart 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.
- Dalewyn 2y ago>The majority of the infants they care for have issues due to heavy drug use during pregnancy. 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.
- lukan 2y agoIt is. And children are taken away. The problem is, the state alternative to parenting is not working problem free either. My mother worked in that area(in germany), so I have some insight and can say, in many instances, the children had better circumstances with their junkie parents, than being dragged through foster homes. Siblings torn apart without warning etc. What most junkie parents need is practical help, so they can have a rehab, not prosecution.
- brabel 2y agoHow are the children affected by drugs during pregnancy over the long term? Do they suffer mental or physical disabilities as they grow up?
- 123yawaworht456 2y agoAlso according to the Guardian: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
- vasco 2y agoAnd if you want to get rid of house fires, get rid of houses!
- thriftwy 2y agoThe article also does it. Near the bottom it suggests family planning. Not a bad thing per se if not for family overplanning.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThey’re not wrong.
- 123yawaworht456 2y agosure. and in the next breath, they'll tell you the the western countries need millions of immigrants to make up for your nonexistent birth rates. anti-natalism and pro-immigration always go hand in hand.
- Wytwwww 2y ago> Not according to the Guardian To be fair that's an opinion piece.
- nmstoker 2y agoThe figures about safety are likely little comfort to expectant mothers when they go into an NHS hospital and see the sheer prevalence of avoidable mistakes, large and small. This isn't just a maternity ward issue, although the effects of poor attention and mistakes are particularly dangerous there, it's a risk across all NHS hospitals. 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.
- Yoric 2y agoI think it depends on the country, no?
- tomalaci 2y agoPretty sure you want to include location as a variable in this kind of statistic.
- filleduchaos 2y agoWhy? Do you think there is anywhere on earth where it's more dangerous to give birth now than a hundred years ago?
- saagarjha 2y agoWhy pick a hundred year horizon? All of human history gives quite a bit more leeway, no?
- vincentkriek 2y agoAnd what would be the answer then? Where would it be safer somewhere in history than it is now?
- saagarjha 2y agoMaternal mortality in the US has generally been considered to either be flat or rise over the last few decades.
- filleduchaos 2y agoA hundred years was being generous (in the 1920s modern medicine was fairly recognisably taking shape). If you want to make it five hundred years or a millennium ago then be my guest.
- arjvik 2y agoSome location currently undergoing civil war, for instance.
- throwaway290 2y agoIn USA it's arguably more dangerous than a few years back, especially if you're black https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2806661 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28066...
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- rtz121 2y agoAnd yet we don't. Curious!
- ggm 2y agoThe drop in healthcare standards in the NHS is more than offset by the longterm trend to safer childbirth in emerging and developing economies. 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)
- greekanalyst 2y agoInfant mortality rates are historically moving down, but so are fertility rates. 21st century demographics will be a tough cookie to crack.
- throwaway63467 2y agoYeah it’s pretty amazing what they can do, the earliest surviving premature baby was born after just 21 weeks of pregnancy.
- incomingpain 2y agoSafest time in history, lowest fertility rate in history. Massive political polarization over it as well.