Amazing documentary tonight on BBC1 at 10.35pm - Four Born Every Second - a kind of global OBEM

[MmeLindor]

Here

I saw a preview today and it is both shocking and inspiring.

287,000 women die from pregnancy related causes every year, 99% of them in developing countries.

The film shows the difference between UK and US births and those in Cambodia and Sierra Leone.

It does contain quite distressing scenes of still birth, so maybe not for you if you are currently pregnant.

I blogged about it today (link on profile) to give you an idea what it is about and will be watching again tonight.

I picked up on the 13 year old, she was shown in a very brief shot laying with her baby asleep. I was immediately shocked that she was so young.

I'm 22 weeks pg with my third child having lost my DS shortly after birth last year (prolapsed cord). I found this very hard to watch too.

Was it wrong of me to feel that - despite the loss of their baby - there was a 'happy ending' for the Cambodian family at the end? The caption said that Lyly had died, but that the mother was now able to work to support the family and that the boy was in school. This has to mean a brighter future for all of them, surely?

The name of the season that the film is being shown in is 'Why Poverty' and presumably - the producers think - one of the answers is that too many pregnancies = too many mouths to feed, but also that - while childbearing and childrearing - women are economically inactive which means that the rest of their family suffers.

Especially where the fathers aren't around. I thought the single mother had been chosen because - apart from the US family - her experience was directly related to the others - having to give birth and raise a child on her own. It obviously showed how much easier this is in Britain, but I also thought - as a film - it was a pretty damning indictment of men of all nationalities who get women pregnant but then abandon them to raise the children alone.

I couldn't condemn that British mother. I thought she was doing a fantastic job - obviously very committed and caring. The reason she's on benefits is because - as she very calmly said - the dad "doesn't want to be involved". She can't go out and work while she's got young children - same as the Cambodian mother couldn't - so she doesn't really have much choice. I think the worst part is that she shrugs her shoulders and accepts his choice. Not criticising her - it's a reflection of how lots of people feel.

For me, the film highlighted - regardless of geography or background - how very very vulnerable women are when they are pregnant or have very young children. I think the world forgets that sometimes.

Mme Lindor - 'The UK mother said that she would like to go to college. I hope that she can afford to do this'.

She also said that she had failed the maths test (which was probably pretty easy, let's face it).

So shouldn't she have thought about getting a JOB, not going to college (which also costs the taxpayer??) before having her children?? We had to work to make money to then take time off and have kids...

My point is that she may not have been so careless with contraception if the UK did not provide such a generous safety net of benefits for her.

My point is that she may not have been so careless with contraception if the UK did not provide such a generous safety net of benefits for her.

But the American couple showed that people still have babies when they have access to contraception and nowhere for the baby to come home to.

Pied - "We had to work to make money" - I think the 'we' is pretty telling there. Presumably you had a DH or DP to support you while you were pregnant and had a young baby at home. The woman in the film didn't.

And why is it just her fault that she was careless with contraception? If he was so uninterested in having children, he should have worn a condom.

I sort of agree that the benefits provide a 'no consequences' culture, but I still think the father is more to blame than she is. At least she's raising her kids.

how people can watch this, and then turn on the benefits-UK-Mum is frankly beyond me

Poor people in the UK can have babies relatively healthily thank god
Poor people in other countries cant, tragically

thats the whole fucking point !!!!

some comments have turned my stomach

would people prefer she suffered more????

I would be too scared to watch it.

My womb ruptured last year - and it's fair to say it was because of the doctors who insisted on inducing me. Totally preventable, and I hold a lot of anger over it.

But, yes I can see that I was lucky to be in the UK. Though I have nothing much to be thankful for really

Very difficult watching, poor little Ly Ly and also her wonderfully bright and brave big brother, i hope he gets to stay at school now and hopefully have a brighter future.
Makes you realise how lucky we are here in the UK.

All the poor women that died, how increadibly sad, the way the stillborn babies were lifted out and rushed off (unceremoniously).

I don't understand why the women were not offered sterilisation (maybe they are and I missed it?). So sad.

I came on here to say how profoundly the documentary had affected me. I was expecting to hear a lot of people similarly feeling the painful, searing injustice of what we saw in that documentary. Relief that we like in the a country that believes in the duty to care for our fellow man/woman. Determination to help improve the lot of women in countries who don't benefit from a more humane distribution of GDP. I am actually gobsmacked by the cold hearted, callous and almost bizarrely point-missing posts of posters like Piedwagtail. Unbelievable that indignation about the situation of the UK single mother is your primary response to the programme, piedwagtail. Absolutely unbelievable.

'like in the a country'?? live in a country

I agree with fromparis, this whole programme was about the outcomes of children and woman through out the world where child birth is concerned.

The fact that people are having babies wether morally they should or should not is totaly irrelevant,Newhart is relevant is the sats and different outcomes that have been shown. The child in the uk have better outcomes and a higher survival through out life, from the cradle to the grave. That is a reflection of the uk welfare system. That is serving in the whole the children in our society well.

It is an reflection that in a society and a government that cares children are given the best start in life. What was highlighted for me was infant what was shown in the uk was that the single mother lacked vital supportive and community networks that allows her the equality and opportunities to enter the work place because she is a woman And has responsibilities to her children, that is true discrimination that she is true gender and class discrimination, that child care costs and wages are not reflective of each other. It also reflected a the problems with our education system that she was unable to pass required exams for collage entry.

What it was not about was criticising women world wide for having babies because they can't afford them. I highly suspect the single mother has become a mother due to isolation and loneliness and a lack of positive attachments from her own childhood and that is why our welfare and care system has a focus on children to help prevent and stop these cycles through out families and generations,hopefully giving her own children an even better chance than she has had.

We shouldn't be viewing documentaries like this through arent we lucky eyes, we should be viewing them more critically with a global understanding of poverty and inequalities and the effects these have on children and becoming more politically aware. Someone said it up thread about looking at how raising standards in other countries should be the topic of debate not lowering our own support nets and medical standards.

I also wanted to ask if anyone knew if the us mother was left 4 days in a difficult labour because she had no insurance etc, and if she had insurance would she have relieved medical intervention. I felt it may be relent but it wasn't addressed really.

Thanks
I think piedwagtail ahiould be a little bit ashamed of herself

should!

Good points, EnthusiasticTroll, and Farrows - I agree that it is maddening to see this reduced to 'she should have been more careful with contraception'.

Her daughter looked well-cared for, her house was tidy and clean, she was taking care of her health, and the health of her DDs.

Did no one pick up on her comment, 'I wanted someone to love, someone who would love me'.

My daughter doesn't need to have a baby to have someone to love, someone to love her because she has a supportive and loving family. Which is not to say that all young mums are from neglectful families, before anyone jumps on that, but she seemed very lonely. As someone said, at least Hawa who gave birth in her home village in Sierra Leone had support from other women.

It also struck me that at no point in the film were the women asked why they got pregnant, or if they had been using contraceptives. There was no blame apportioned, as there should not be.

No I saw it as appreciating the medical safety net we have and questioning our support network.Couldn't give a stuff re how palatable that is for some.

I thought actually the doc showed us as being rather wasteful as a country.

Our NHS is our biggest asset and I strongly believe every single person should have free access to healthcare whatever the circumstances.However this free healthcare is being attacked by our debt and to be perfectly frank if we cut back on supporting girls being able to have as many kids as they like whilst staying on benefits as long as they like perhaps the NHS will stick around for longer.The fact is we're all growing older and the NHS is going to cost us more and more.

Decent medical with free access is what cuts maternal/infant mortality.

We don't know the ins and outs re the girl in question.Maybe she has a mother or her partners mother that could help out with childcare.Maybe she could get back to the books and keep trying until she gets that exam.Maybe she had a 2nd child because she knew the state would support her(it aint that difficult to get contraception and living in the UK you get it free).1 set of childcare bills is a whole less than one.

Mothers all over the world have to take responsibility for their children and face danger in childbirth.Where we are born has a huge impact on life expectancy-access to healthcare is the single most important thing.I feel this doc highlighted how perhaps we don't appreciate what we have in this country and focus far too little on what we take for granted-maybe that is what they set out to do.

Living in a 1 room or a house the fact of the matter is if you have access to free healthcare your chances of living longer increase dramatically.

Maybe polkadot, when you put it like that, it does make sence that the dr did highlite somehow that welfare and access to healthcare is taken for granted.

I'm not sure the uk mum did much support, I wasn't sure if she was on the bus going to the hospital in labour alone or if it was just edited that way, she certainly appeared to be on her own whilst giving birth and coming home in the taxi. I personaly got the impression she didnt really have anyone to help. She mentioned her mum and sister but it was difficult to see how much support she had.

Polka
It comes down to the fact that we have a welfare safety net, and they are struggling even to get an emergency gynae care. It is comparing apples with pears, really.

'Is it worse to be born poor, or to die poor?', was the question.

In comparison to those born in more affluent households, no matter if we are talking of UK or Sierra Leone, being born poor gives children a bad start in life, that many will never overcome.

We can't compare the life of a poor single mum in UK with that of a single mum in Cambodia, but we can compare her life with that of a more affluent mum in UK.

When I compare the life that my children lead, with the life that her children will lead, I can clearly see that my children have an advantage. And we are by no means rich!

Treats - you're absolutely right. The role of men in just about all of the scenarios last night was totally appalling - where were they? They just weren't there. The women were left with the baby every time.

Mme Lindor - I wasn't reducing it to contraception - that was only one of my points. I didn't pick up on 'I wanted someone to love, someone who would love me'. How sad.

Farrow - 'Unbelievable that indignation about the situation of the UK single mother is your primary response to the programme, piedwagtail. Absolutely unbelievable.' - it wasn't my primary response, thanks, Farrow.

Perhaps it was the point that was easiest for me to make because my other reactions were too, I don't know, difficult to write here. Sorry if I have given anyone the wrong impression.

The thing is I wonder if anybody lambasting posters raising this question have had to access the NHS recently and found it wanting.My family has twice recently.In both situations the dep funding has been cut and both of the problems happening in our family were getting worse by waiting-a lot worse.One involved an oap.

My father paid for both to go private(I was one of them).Now I am lucky my father could pay.My consultant commented on how much worse my situation was by waiting and that I shouldn't have had to pay,ditto the oap involved.

It's only when you need the NHS quickly do you realise how scary it is when it's not doing what is should do.We should be keeping a far closer eye on it.It's becoming privatised under our very noses. Maybe we'll move closer to the US style and they'll move closer to ours. Lets hope the maternal/infant death rates don't get closer too(there are questions all over Google as to wether Obamacare will help cut the US maternal mortality rates).

The people likely to be most directly affected by this are the young lady and her children highlighted in the documentary. Looking at our welfare system is in their interest too,probably more so-I doubt she has a father able to pay medical bills if they're needed.

Would be soooo nice if there could be a discussion just for once re this subject that didn't involve cries of benefit bashing/DM readers if anybody so much as questions looking at benefits of any kind.

polka

of course I have had issues with the NHS, I appreciate it AND i can see it has many many limitations

but nonethless I dont see the link between this, and lambasting a single mother

and again I am disgusted that a film about maternal and foetal mortality turned into this

people depress me

'The fact is we're all growing older and the NHS is going to cost us more and more.'

That isn't a fact. People born between the wars are living a long time. Those that followed (reaching pension age atm) are actually dropping like flies.

But don't let the truth stop you from justifying cuts to the NHS.

Oh and I doubt they'll be handing out free housing and other benefits with Obamacare. The reason there is hope that Obamacare could cut mortality rates is because having access to decent healthcare is what cuts infant/maternal mortality even things like post partum checks which we take for granted.

We should be focusing on maintaining our NHS and questioning/cutting back elsewhere.

We simply can't have it all.The money isn't there.Putting ones head in the sand as a nation is only going to have the worse impact on our poorest.

Starlight a third of babies born in 2013 will live to 100(widely reported recently)-that is staggering and scary.

From kind of that having a frank discussion depresses you but hey ho-reality an be stark.