Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Infant Mortality Up First Time in Decades
AP to My Yahoo! ^ | Feb. 12, 2004 | DANIEL YEE

Posted on 02/11/2004 3:41:20 PM PST by Pharmboy

ATLANTA - U.S. infant mortality has climbed for the first time in more than four decades, in part because older women are putting off motherhood and then having multiple babies via fertility drugs, the government said Wednesday.

At the same time, U.S. life expectancy reached an all-time high of 77.4 years in 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Life expectancy in 2001 was 77.2 years.

The nation's infant mortality rate climbed from 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to 7.0 deaths per 1,000 in 2002. The last time the rate rose was in 1958.

"We were surprised because it has been declining fairly steadily for more than four decades," said Joyce Martin, lead statistician for the CDC. "You're always concerned when an important indicator in public health increases."

The 2002 rise may be a one-time blip, since the U.S. rate for 2003 is expected to drop, a preliminary review by the CDC indicates.

CDC officials said the exact reasons for the increase are not yet clear. But previous CDC research suggests the rise in infant mortality may reflect the long trend among American women toward delaying motherhood.

Women who put off motherhood until their 30s or 40s are more likely to have babies with birth defects or other potentially deadly complications.

Also, older women are more likely to use fertility drugs to get pregnant, and such drugs often lead to twins, triplets and other multiple births. And multiple births carry a higher risk of premature labor and low birthweight — conditions that can endanger babies' lives.

CDC officials said other factors may have also led to the rise in infant mortality. For example, more babies are being born prematurely or at low birthweights because more doctors are inducing labor and using Caesarean sections for delivery, the CDC said.

The number of multiple births and other high-risk pregnancies in the United States steadily increased in the past decade as more women have put off having their first child. Recent birth rates for women ages 35 to 44 were the highest levels for those age groups in three decades, the CDC reported in September.

More than half of the multiple births in 2002 were born preterm or had low birthweight, the CDC said.

The rate of triplets and larger multiple births was 184 births per 100,000 deliveries in 2002. Multiple births climbed more than 400 percent between 1980 and 1998 because of fertility treatments by older women, the CDC previously reported.

Despite the infant mortality increase, U.S. life expectancy continues to rise because of steady decreases in deaths from heart disease, stroke and cancer.

"When you see decreases in those three causes, you usually are going to see increases in life expectancy," said Ken Kochanek, CDC statistician.

Homicides decreased 17 percent in 2002, but that was largely because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the year before. When only non-terrorism homicides were counted, the U.S. rate dropped 3.3 percent, the CDC said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ageatbirthing; health; heartdisease; infantmortality; lifespan; stroke; yuppies
Infant mortality is less a measure of health care delivery than it is social conditions (and abortion likely DECREASED infant mortality because of the proportion of abortions done in young and often underprivileged women, 2 risk factors for increased infant mortality). Interesting point about mothers at later ages--likely true.

Life expectancy is more directly related to health care delivery. Those nasty pharmaceutical companies are keeping people alive for only one reason: so they can continue to take their drugs! [lame attempt at humor]

1 posted on 02/11/2004 3:41:22 PM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Ping
2 posted on 02/11/2004 3:42:17 PM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!Its Bush's fault!
3 posted on 02/11/2004 3:51:47 PM PST by Grit (http://www.NRSC.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
--yup. If we could just put those nasty drug companies out of business all these greedy geezers being kept alive by the miracles of modern chemistry would die off--it would save the Social Security system----
4 posted on 02/11/2004 3:58:30 PM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
abortion, birth control, late marriage, everything the libs have been telling women for years to do. Modern women want it all on their own terms.
5 posted on 02/11/2004 3:59:13 PM PST by tbird5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Thanks for the ping. I've no clue why it went up. I'm certain that the Dems will figure out some way to blame it on Bush and the Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) will blame it on global warming and acid rain.
6 posted on 02/11/2004 4:40:58 PM PST by CholeraJoe ("Talk tough and build Star Wars." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Might have something to do with women working longer in the pregnancy and putting their little ones in daycare sooner.

7 posted on 02/11/2004 5:17:02 PM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
The infant mortality wouldn't take the day care numbers--this is immeditely after birth.
8 posted on 02/11/2004 6:30:10 PM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
ping
9 posted on 02/11/2004 6:31:25 PM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I missed that--thanks.
10 posted on 02/11/2004 9:21:09 PM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I must correct you--this is from another story on this subject:

But at the same time, infant mortality increased from a rate of 6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to a rate of 7 per 1,000 in 2002. It's the first time since 1958 that the rate has not fallen or remained unchanged.

The NCHS report attributes the rise in infant mortality to an increase in deaths of infants less than 28 days old -- particularly those who died within the first week of life.

The three causes of death that accounted for most of the increase in infant mortality included birth defects, low birth weight and related disorders, and maternal complications of pregnancy. Deaths from sudden infant death syndrome declined between 2001 and 2002, continuing a long-term downward trend.

On the positive side, there was a continued decrease in late-term fetal deaths, defined as 28 or more weeks of gestation.

I'm not in my normal browser so I can't easily recover the link for that--but it was from www.channeloklahoma.com's story on this topic.
11 posted on 02/11/2004 9:53:15 PM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
Yes--the neonatal period is just that--but we were talking about DAY CARE which would NOT affect infants in the first several months of life. Parents don't start using day care until later...
12 posted on 02/12/2004 2:49:30 AM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
My friend, I wish you were right....

There's a 3 week old baby in my church's daycare right now. Everybody has to go see him and breathe on him 'cuz he's just so cute....

:sigh:
13 posted on 02/12/2004 5:15:43 AM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
Yes--that does happen, but most day care kids are indeed older than one month. I'll look for statistics.
14 posted on 02/12/2004 5:28:19 AM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
You think maybe this is because abortions are down? Now they have to count the baby's death, since it was actually born.
15 posted on 02/12/2004 5:30:22 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Medical statistics are hightly manipulable......in the District of Columbia, soaring infant mortality statistics in the early 1990's brought an avalanche of Federal funds to DC...which "cured" the problem within 12-18 months ....when some alert Federal staffer realized that abortions were being counted by the District Government as infant mortality!...ya just can't make this stuff up!:)
16 posted on 02/12/2004 5:33:06 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
It turns out that the infant mortality statistics include all death certificates of babies under one year. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the number of babies under one year in daycare has steadily increased over the years as it's become normalized.

I was pressured to put my kids in daycare for "socialization" before they were one. What nonsense--babies don't need the company of other babies. For babies, even playgroups are for the MOTHERS not the babies.
17 posted on 02/12/2004 6:22:14 AM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
[Rates are infant (under 1 year), neonatal (under 28 days), and postneonatal (28 days-11 months) deaths per 1,000 live births in specified group. Beginning in 1980, race for live births is tabulated according to race of mother; see Technical Notes]

You taught me something--I always thought infant mortality was for the neonatal period only. The above comes from the head of the CDC chart. And I'm a pediatrician by training!
18 posted on 02/12/2004 7:44:34 AM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Hey, it's amazing how you can miss something somewhere along the way, especially with fine distinctions like this.

I'm not sure it's even fair to characterize daycare as being more dangerous than stay-at-home care for babies. It may be that it's about the same....
19 posted on 02/12/2004 11:09:23 AM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
The issue of day care and infections has been settled by many studies: having an infant in day care leads to more ear infections and gastroenteritis.
20 posted on 02/12/2004 11:30:01 AM PST by Pharmboy (History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson