View Single Post
Old 07-04-2007, 07:02 AM   #147 (permalink)
ngdawg
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
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.
__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Last edited by ngdawg; 07-04-2007 at 07:24 AM.. Reason: avoiding auto-merge
ngdawg is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360