|
pubmed:otherAbstract |
PIP: We prefer to use the term infant mortality rate (IMR) than infant mortality. IMR is less emotional, causes less anxiety, and implies poverty and hardship while infant mortality signifies dead children. Not all societies consider prevention of infant deaths as their 1st priority albeit still a social and emotional priority. IMR has been used for a century as a health subindex. Further many people consider the IMR as an indicator of adverse economic, nutritional, environmental, and social conditions. The IMR should be used in a more restrictive manner since children can be saved from death yet they continue to experience morbidity and live in poverty. Further those factors which cause infant deaths also affect survivors and their consequences are hard to gauge. To improve on overall health and not just reduction of infant mortality, a local and appropriate health service which the population accepts must have clear objectives and provide continuous prevention and treatment programs for all cohorts of children. Yet many developing countries which would clearly benefit from continuous child health programs do not operate such a health system. Similarly international, bilateral, and other external organizations who support child survival programs must also plan on continuous self sustaining services that are directed to the living as well as the dead. Moreover their priorities should be compatible with national priorities. In conclusion, a global or even national recession that raises absolute or relative poverty or reduces the transfer of resources which are now going to temporary vertical infant death prevention programs will most likely increase IMR and decrease infant health.
|
