Skip to main content

Stark reality. One million babies die within 24 hours of birth

A startling and horrifying statistic emerges from a Report just issued by the Save the Children Fund.    It can only be seen as shameful that in a world with such abundant riches, some 1 million babies die within 24 hours of being born.

"Nearly three million babies die within the first month of life – more than one million on the same day they are born – largely from preventable causes, according to a new report published today.

Newborn deaths today account for 43 percent of all child deaths, up from 36 percent in 1990, the report said. The highest newborn mortality rates were in sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of newborns who died each year slightly increased in that time period.

****

 "Sixty-five percent of all newborn deaths occur in just 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, according to the report. Somalia had the highest mortality rate, and India had the greatest number of deaths, among babies who die the day they are born.

And yet, according to Save the Children, effective and low-cost interventions exist that, combined with trained health workers and increased access to quality healthcare, could reduce newborn mortality by up to 75 percent. The report said that such efforts have helped resource-poor countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Malawi each dramatically reduce its newborn death rate by more than 40 percent since 1990.

The leading causes of newborn death are preterm birth, birth complications, and infections, the report noted. In an example of the impact that one low-cost intervention could have, the report found that to reduce the number of babies that die because of prematurity, an event that causes 35 percent of all newborn deaths, a steroid injection for mothers that costs only US$0.51 could save 340,000 newborns each year."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more