Infant Mortality on the rise.

This is the full Guardian article from yesterday with the stats and the headlines do back the disparity between "poor and better off" backgrounds

"Infant mortality has risen for the third year in a row in England, with the risk of death for babies born in deprived areas almost three times higher than those from wealthier postcodes, figures show"

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/14/infant-mortality-rises-for-third-year-in-a-row-with-risk-tripling-in-deprived-areas#:~:text=Infant%20mortality%20has%20risen%20for,from%20wealthier%20postcodes%2C%20figures%20show.

A baby born into a poorer area is almost 3 times more likely to die than one born into a wealthy area.

I don't think that's connected to Asian women refusing to remove clothing (?) or young people not wishing to have children.

There are many factors which affect both the size of a family and the level of infant mortality.

I have heard or read many comments by young people that they don't want to bring children into the world at this time because of the amount of warfare, famine, climate uncertainty and general political and social unrest.

A first pregnancy is a "test run" for the mother and may be less successful than later ones. The number of children per family always goes down when and where the position of women improves. As families get smaller, the proportion of children born as a first baby gets higher, so it could be that shows up in the statistics.

Blaming the government is an easy knee-jerk reaction.

Incidentally, if that's the government's aim, it's worked because about 85% of families have only one or two children. The average number of children has gone down, while the infant mortality rate has increased. Something doesn't add up there, if there's a link between not doing anything and average family size.

ronib

growstuff I am trying to work that out too …. But government clearly wants to limit family size otherwise child benefit would not be capped at two children.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I think the link with not wanting to do anything about infant mortality is tenuous. If that were the case, there would be a clear link between the number of children in a family and infant mortality. I think it's still true that the first born is more likely to be more at risk.

growstuff I am trying to work that out too …. But government clearly wants to limit family size otherwise child benefit would not be capped at two children.

ronib

nanna8 no there’s definitely a sociological aspect here and you need to look at the information. Black poor babies are disadvantaged here.

I agree with you about the sociological aspect. I was trying to get my head round the claim that government don't want to do anything because they want to limit the size of families.

Ashcombe

*growstuff*: I imagine that removal of lower garments would be necessary in order for a scan to be conducted or the bump measured to check that growth was in line with the number of weeks of the pregnancy.

That's not what I remember. Underclothes don't need to be removed for a scan or to measure the bump. Obviously trousers need to be removed, but skirts can be lifted up.

growstuff I don’t think that existing family size was considered in the study.

growstuff: I imagine that removal of lower garments would be necessary in order for a scan to be conducted or the bump measured to check that growth was in line with the number of weeks of the pregnancy.

nanna8 no there’s definitely a sociological aspect here and you need to look at the information. Black poor babies are disadvantaged here.

ronib

The Guardian reported that infant mortality rates were rising from 3.8 to 3.9 and that a certain group was affected more than others. I don’t know what to think about this as governments have capped the number of children born per family at two through stopping child benefit after the second child so obviously penalising poor families. I guess government doesn’t want poor families to have more children so is unlikely to put policies in place to improve infant mortality rates?

Is there any indication that size of family is linked to infant mortality?

Calendargirl what I was trying to say is that we have poor disadvantaged families with higher infant mortality rates and government policy effectively encouraging two child families. So therefore what is likely to be government policy? Does it try to improve conditions for the most disadvantaged groups but only up to the two child limit ?

The rate per 1,000 infant deaths here is 3.2 as opposed to 3.9 in the UK. We have one on one care for very premmie babies (born pre 30 weeks gestation) here because it is needed. Maybe they don’t have that, I don’t know. I believe it is wrong to lay blame on the mothers, anyone can have a stillborn baby or one who dies soon after birth no matter what their sociological background.

I guess government doesn’t want poor families to have more children

But if two children are as much as can be reasonably afforded, that makes sense to me.

It’s not saying ‘If you’re poor, don’t have any children’.

Why would pregnant women need to remove their underclothes at an ante-natal clinic, unless they were having an internal examination? I don't remember having any internal examinations when pregnant until the very end. Other screening markers, such as blood pressure and weight gain, are used to monitor the health of the unborn child and mother.

The article mentions obesity and smoking as risk factors. in addition to having Black Caribbean/African or Asian Pakistani ethnicity. There's no mention of child cruelty. Are you implying that Black and Pakistani parents are cruel towards their children?

Prematurity is the top cause of death for infants, which Luyt said was due to women’s health, including obesity and smoking, as well as regional variation in the availability of specialist care during pregnancy and after birth.

She added that rising child poverty rates also contributed, with the UK “falling behind” comparable countries.

From the Guardian. Karen Luyt is a neonatologist.
The article refences this:
www.ncmd.info/about/

Lots of not-so-straightforward reasons/findings. This is dated June but data is collected and analysed all the time.

www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-latest-child-infant-mortality-data-england-wales

Do they mean at birth or infant death syndrome? A midwife told me that Asian women refuse to remove their underclothes at the ante-natal clinic. This means it's impossible to examine them properly and any problems go undetected.
Sorry to sound heartless, but if people cannot afford to take care of their children properly, why have them?
There are more and more cases of child cruelty, which doesn't come to light until the child is killed. Is this a reflection of social care failings? Are there no health visitors any more?
It sounds as though this is another area where cutbacks have caused children to suffer.
It's time this country got its priorities right.

The Guardian reported that infant mortality rates were rising from 3.8 to 3.9 and that a certain group was affected more than others. I don’t know what to think about this as governments have capped the number of children born per family at two through stopping child benefit after the second child so obviously penalising poor families. I guess government doesn’t want poor families to have more children so is unlikely to put policies in place to improve infant mortality rates?

I think it's indisputable that we have both inequity and inequality in the UK.

Inequity is a noun that means the state of being unfair or unjust, or something that is unfair. For example, you might describe a punishment as inequitable if it led people to believe the defendant was being punished for their political beliefs.
Here are some examples of inequity:
Racial inequity: A leader fighting against racial inequity
School funding inequities: Huge inequities in funding for schools
Healthcare system inequities: Inequities in the healthcare system
Gender inequity: Gender inequity in the classroom

Iniquity?

Inequality?

inequity

Sorry, its been a hard day.