Racial Discrimination as the Reason for High Infant Mortality Rates

Introduction

It is claimed that high infant mortality rates are due to poor general health as a result of existing social, economic and environmental policies. Social barriers and racial discrimination are said to prevent access to basic health care and existing resources. It is also accepted that women in the workplace are often under duress, resulting in poor health. Government policies promoting neoliberalism have resulted in market forces having a major impact on people’s health while austerity measures put pressure on lower income groups of people resulting in poor health. Even increasing wealth does not guarantee good health because of changing lifestyles and mental stress. This essay will support the statement that racial discrimination and poor government policy leads to high infant mortality rates.

Description

Social inequalities in various forms have an adverse effect on health, with depression, diabetes, heart disease and cancer rampant among the socially excluded groups of people. Schrecker and Bambra, 2015 argue that health is not determined by the amount of wealth alone. Rather, it depends on our eating habits, what kind of work we do, and how much we exercise. We are also affected by those around us and how money is distributed and spent. Inequity adversely affects the way we live, how money is squandered, and how social integration is hampered. It is established that infant mortality rates and poverty are closely related. However, it is believed that high levels of inequality adversely affect the health of even the richest. This is because wealth alone does not ensure social integration and may result in stress, fear, and insecurity in women, with resultant high infant mortality rates.

It is seen that there is a wide gap in infant mortality rates and life expectancy over various countries and ethnic groups. In the US alone, according to Parker et al there has been a marked increase in black-white difference in the risk of infant death due to social inequalities and exclusion from services, no matter how good the formulation and intentions of policy and law. Disparities in infant mortality are rooted fundamentally in social isolation, difference in levels of authority, as well as access to resources and social services (Wise 2003). The WHO CSDH Final Report (2008) clearly highlights that the health of people are determined by various factors, as well as different situations of childhood and education, the kind of employment and the work environment.

There is also social stratification in the workplace resulting in racial discrimination. Kidder and Raworth (2004) have documented how women at work are adversely affected by their working conditions. This is especially so where their work is low skilled and labour intensive in low cost production industries. Their output is expected to remain high with flexible working hours and often little rest and recuperation. Pregnant women often do not have time or access to antenatal checkups and maternity leave, resulting in a myriad of problems like under nutrition, anaemia, miscarriage, abortion, and high infant mortality rates. Women suffer most where there is no respect for labour-law and the health and safety of workers. Where governments fail, women pay the price.

Neoliberalism is an epidemic and people are now realising that there is a need to change neoliberal government policies where there is a fundamental conflict between state and market (World Health Organisation. World health statistics 2017). Neoliberalisation is a new type of imperialism where there is pressure to increase output and profits through low cost production of service and goods. These results in retrenchment of staff, long working hours, high rates of unemployment and people often work in dangerous conditions. In the context of the US and UK, neoliberal policies have caused four epidemics, namely obesity, stress, austerity and inequality, threatening public health by increasing mortality and morbidity. The privatisation of the UK NHS is a good example of a hybrid between public and private and how social and health inequalities have increased rapidly due to neoliberal policies. There is erosion of human rights and the hijacking of the state by market and financial forces through privatisation and contracting out of previously subsidised social services. The public sector is required to follow the market rules of the private sector where health is a private good and competition and profit rules, eroding fundamental human rights. Privatisation of public health leads to insecurity, long working hours, underpayment and the loss of workplace rights, job security, and welfare rights resulting in a myriad of chronic diseases. Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) has affirmed that patient user-fees in contracted out public health services are not an equitable way to finance health systems and is one of the major causes of poverty and high infant mortality rates in low and middle-income groups of people. This is because they are further impoverished when their out of pocket expenditure on health is higher than their disposable income. Quality health care for this group is a luxury rather than an automatic social right.

Austerity measures also adversely impacts people’s health. O’Connell, R and Hamilton, L (2017) highlight that government imposed austerity can cause decreased access to health care, resulting in high infant mortality rates. Research done by Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana & Hudson Pacifico da Silva highlight that worldwide, where 1.1% of GDP is spent on benefits for children, their health and development is affected. In the UK, the ‘Brexit’ initiative is a direct result of ongoing austerity policies and demonstrates how people’s lives and infant health can be affected (The Conversation. July 30, 2018) . In austerity environments, deprived people are under stress and have low-status jobs. It has been shown that there are clear affiliations between austerity and support for far right-wing parties among people in the UK who voted to leave the EU. People living in impoverished areas of the UK, where the industrial base was affected by globalisation and austerity measures have been disillusioned in believing that the solution is to take back control of their country and resources. They do not realise that this modern world relies on the development of new skills and technology, and interdependency (not full independence), and have no idea how Brexit may affect their lives, their businesses and health. Also, NHS staffing relies heavily on EU staff whose future may be jeopardised by Brexit (Nick Fahy et al, The Lancet). Also, the availability of drugs, technology, blood etc. could be threatened as many of these come from EU countries and bottle necks in supply may hamper their availability. It is generally believed that a soft version of Brexit would have less health threats and a failed Brexit would be the worst for public health.

Increasing obesity and chronic diseases is attributed to result from government policies where higher income levels and migration of people to cities change their living conditions, eating habits and lifestyles. Refined flour and sugary drinks-are ready made food and they are major factors in weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. Junk food is unhealthy processed food high in calories but low in nutritional value. However, it is the most convenient and cheapest food in this fast moving age and time.  Especially, people exercise less due to advancements of technology (Malik, Willett and Hu, 2012). It has also been shown that technology can affect the users' mental and physical health. This may be manifest with distraction, narcissism and depression. Besides affecting users' mental health, use of technology can also have negative repercussions on physical health causing problems with sight, loss of hearing, neck pain, and the general health of pregnant women. In an article by Rosen, he maintains that there are signs and symptoms of mental health disease like narcissism and addiction in people who overindulgence in technology.

Conclusion

Causes of infant mortality lead directly to death from a lack of access to quality health services due to reasons mentioned above. A contributor towards high infant mortality is when government social and health policy is not conducive to improved conditions of families and health care for infants. There is clear evidence that racial discrimination, austerity, neoliberalism, people’s migration and urbanisation, poor working conditions, and changes in eating habits and lifestyles are major contributors to high infant mortality.

References:

1. Schrecker, T. and Bambra, C. (2015) ‘Introduction: Politics and Health’, How politics makes us sick: Neoliberal epidemics, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-22
2. Adverse Birth Outcomes in African American Women: The Social Context of Persistent Reproductive Disadvantage. Tyan Parker Dominguez
3. The Anatomy of a Disparity in Infant Mortality. Annual Review of Public Health. Vol. 24:341-362 (May 2003) Paul H Wise
4. WHO CSDH (2008) ‘Market responsibility’, Closing the gap in a generation. Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report. Geneva; WHO, pp. 132-144
5. Kidder, T and Raworth, K (2004) “’Good jobs’ and hidden costs: Women workers documenting the price of precarious employment” Gender and development, vol. 12(2): 12-21
6. World Health Organisation. World health statistics 2017, monitoring health for the SDGs 2017
7. O’Connell, R and Hamilton, L (2017) ‘Hunger and food poverty’, The Violence of Austerity, London, Pluto Press, pp. 94-100
8. Neoliberal meritocracy and financial capitalism: consequences for social protection and health Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana 1 Hudson Pacifico da Silva. July 2018.
9. Brexit: austerity tipped balance towards Leave, new study suggests The Conversation. July 30, 2018 
10. How will Brexit affect health and health services in the UK?. Evaluating three possible scenarios. Nick Fahy et al, The Lancet September 28, 2017
11. Malik, V, Willett W and Hu, F (2012) “Global Obesity: Trends, risk factors and policy implications” Nature reviews: Endocrinology, pp. 1-15
12. Professor Larry Rosen of California State University, Dominguez Hills