I 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.
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.
> I was interested in that article’s claim as a 8% rise in a year seems high.
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.
>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.
It 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.
It is definitely a bad influence. Crystal meth is the favourite around here and especially in combination with alcohol it is pure poison.
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.
> 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.
The 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.
It 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.
> 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.
The 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).
Plus 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.
It'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.
sure. 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.
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...