Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
You dont even want to get this genealogist started with your comments. I have been tracing families for over 25 years, I know just how many of the "16" children families I have researched had children even reach the age of 1.
Your trying to disclaim infant mortality before 1900 just because ngdawg picked the state she lived in is ludacris. The big problem is that most states didnt start doing death certificates until around 1913ish so there is no "government" proof of why these babies died.
All you have to do is look at a census report.
I added up on a 1910 census for a rural county in GA (this census shows how many births a woman had and how many of those children were living
in 1910 out of 307 women they had 1555 births....961 of those children lived, thats a little of 60% which means an average of a 38% mortality rate, in just ONE county. Granted some of these deaths were from accident/illness etc, still not one woman in that county that had 15+ children had more than 7 live
so dont come telling me that medical intervention in births isnt a plus
|
Your county stats match the NJ ones. I'd be willing to bet any other county or state stats from c1900-1915 would show a similar mortality rate of 32%-38%, an alarming amount when you think about it, but not unrealisitic under the (then) circumstances. Taking into consideration the however modest improvements of living conditions and medical advancement from, say, c1850-1900, one might conclude that those rates probably were closer to 50% in those decades. I'll have to Google some more
Cyn: you rock! Great charts
Ok, I Googled more and found this very comprehensive PDF:
http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/may-jun-04/ar050404.pdf
It states in part, that: In 1963, 31.1 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in NC died before their 1st birthday. There was no neonatal intensive care, no ventilators designed for preemies, no simple way to measure blood gases, and 'the role of continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant was not understood'. This was less than 50 years ago!!!!
The article goes on to address the advances in both medical and social services to pregnant women and their newborns.
I have to thank Ms. Hatch. We've all become much more educated on the impact of medical science and its role in keeping infant and mother mortality rates down as their overall health and longevity rates increase.