Recently, Ina May Gaskin has reported that maternal mortality is on the rise. The supposed rate is 14.5 out of 100,000. Now, according to the CDC's stats from 2003, the rate is 12.3 out of 100,000. Let's break this down to the 1,000 mark. That would equal .145. NCB advocates are angry about a rate of .145? Then, they are blaming modern obstetrics and "unhealthy women".
The out of hospital death rate is 7.84 (out of 1,000). The amount of babies dying outside of the hospital is 54 times higher than the amount of maternal deaths.
So, based on the numbers, where should the outrage lie? Why are NCB advocates making a huge fuss about a rate of .145? We know that pregnancy carries risks and can cause maternal health problems. We also know that people do have more health related issues these days. Luckily modern medicine can help a majority of people suffering from health related issues both in and out of pregnancy. Look at modern day numbers compared to those of days gone by when it was commonplace for a mother to die. Imagine all of these pregnancy induced issues that are now manageable. 100 years ago, the maternal mortality rates were 15.4 out of 100,000. I do admit that for having so much technology, the improvement is not incredibly high, at least not as high as I would imagine!
However, looking at infant mortality rates, we know that in 1911, the infant mortality rate was 135 out of 1,000. So, out of 100,000 births 13,500 babies died. In 2005, the perinatal/neonatal death rates were 5.79. If we look at this out of 100,000 births, that would be 579 babies. So, only 4.3% of babies now die compared to the good ole days. If you look at out of hospital rates, 5.8% of babies now die compared to 100 years ago.
Which numbers should we be outraged over again?? Perhaps it is time for Ina May to care about the babies dying in the name of homebirth!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
On June 4th 2008 I began laboring. I had already been having contractions for 6 days! Two weeks prior I had begun losing my plug, my body wa...
-
Since Mary passed, I have gotten into scrapbooking, both digital and traditional. When you go tryng to fnd stuff, it's very hard! So, I ...
2 comments:
Thanks, good post, and I agree! But, at the end you compare infant mortality rates to current peri/neonatal rates; aren't those 2 different things? We still have a separate category for infant mortality today, did they have the different categories in 1911?
Firstly, out of hospital births include women on drugs that have UC's so as not to get caught, normal women who are birthing without a skilled attendant, women who are risked out of homebirth with a midwife but still have a UC because they want homebirth, women birthing with CNM's, and accidental, unplanned UC's. So you cannot blame all out-of-hospital neonatal deaths on CPM's. Secondly, our national infant mortality rate is 40th in the developed world, and only 1.5% of births in the states are at home. So you certainly cannot blame homebirth for our dismal infant mortality rate.
I am certainly not trying to trivialize your experience, but just because you ended up with a negligent CPM doesn't mean all are. I can't even begin to comprehend your pain.
Blessings,
J.
Post a Comment