Blog #3 SOC 490 The United States and the Issue of high mortality rate

Throughout the 20^th century infant mortality rates within the United States and most other industrialized countries have consistently declined. Why is this? The advent of newfound medical knowledge and technology helped bridge the gap and lower the rate of deaths. Hospitals developed sophisticated neonatal intensive care units for newborns born with defects or other health related problems. Doctors discovered new innovative ways to prevent infant death syndrome by altering the sleeping positions of infants. In Gaudium et Spes it furthers this point that, “Hence, while earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ's kingdom, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God” (Part 1, chapter 3). This quote seems to elucidate the fact that we are all brothers and sisters and should care for one another and not gets wrapped up in the proceedings of the world. Apart from this, the list of inventive methods to improve the infant mortality rate goes on. However, towards the turn of the century the United States started to shift it’s progress in a negative manner. The rate of infant deaths within multiple states started to significantly rise. The increased mortality rate was particularly noticeable among African Americans who experienced higher rates of infant deaths comparable to Caucasians. There are principally five main components to mortality of infants one must consider: birth defects, sudden infant death syndrome, maternal health complications, unintentional injuries, and preterm related causes of death. While keeping this in mind many contemporary scientists have discovered a causality factor that directly links to the high infant mortality rate, specifically premature births. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world. How did our country end up like this?

The sad, almost pathetic low survival rate seen in the U.S. are particularly linked to the high frequency of premature and preterm births. What is the allotted interval to be considered a preterm birth? Typically, most socioeconomic scientists look at when a woman is 22 and 37 weeks pregnant rather than the usual 37 to 41 weeks regular period. Additional causality factors have been linked to the high levels of emotional stress observed in mothers, which could lead also to preterm births. Correlation does not imply causation, but it is still something to consider when delving into this topic. A man by the name of David Stevenson who is a Stanford professor of neonatal and developmental medicine accurately summarizes this dilemma by stating that, “ over the past 30 years the rate of preterm births has remained an intractable problem…I think that we now need to take a different kind of approach to solving it.” Stevenson suggests an integrated approach to solving this nationwide problem. By collaborating and facilitating intelligent and effective conversations with statisticians, mathematicians, social scientists and possibly even ecologists, the U.S. fares better in determining the root of this prominent complication.

When one considers a clinical standpoint infectious diseases can negatively affect preterm births because these babies do not have fully developed, operational immune systems. Not only this, but a variety of other stressors can significantly increase preterm births. At 22 weeks gestation a fetus internal organs are vastly immature and still require considerable growth. However, at the 37-week mark their organ systems have reached maturity and are operational. However, during this interval the marking of a single day in gestation can have a profound impact on the capacity of the baby to live or die. As much as a 3 to 4 percent increase in survival has been recorded in several studies conducted at hospitals throughout the nation.  A recent Commonwealth survey described that, “ in the United States almost one in eight babies is born between 22 and 37 weeks gestation.” Considering how advanced our technology and the level of education of our doctors this statistic is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, Furnas furthers this argument by stating that, “in 2003 the United States fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations in mortality from cases that might have been prevented with timely and effective care” (Furnas, pg. 27-28). We must try harder. 

Most American babies are born in hospitals and receive extraordinary care through the utilization of America’s neonatal intensive care units. However, once the babies are sent home with their families, in the specific case of a poor household, the poor families have considerably less access to quality healthcare compared to the affluent families. Ben Furnas furthers this point by depicting the idea in the Universal Healthcare textbook that, “the United States as a whole is performing well below the standards of health, efficiency, and care that are realistic and have been achieved in the most successful U.S. states and other developed nations” (Furnas, pg. 27). The advent of the Affordable Care Act hopes to stop this from happening by decreasing the frequency of the relatively high infant mortality rate. Only time will tell to see what the results shape up to be.

Even though there is considerable ambiguity that surrounds how we have essentially the highest infant mortality rate in all industrialized countries and still don’t know the exact cause as to why, we do have some answers. Smoking cigarettes, drinking during pregnancy, infections, high blood pressure, and diabetes all contribute to the frequency of preterm births. However, even with this there are still some questions left unanswered among differing populations. For example, women on lower income brackets along with women who have a husband in the military are considerably more likely to have a preterm baby. Will we ever know exactly why the U.S. has such high infant mortality rate issues, along with other health related issues such as diabetes, cancer, and lower respiratory infections? No, probably not. Nonetheless, the U.S. will continue to strive forward, and continue to improve upon existing problems.