
Some news about children's health caught my eye last month caught my eye, something we don't hear much about.
The World Health Organization reported that each year, 950,000 kids die from injuries. That's genuinely disheartening. There's nothing more unnatural or unjust than a parent who outlives their child.
Most disappointing, however, is that 90% of those injuries could have been prevented.
In the United States, the CDC shows that 12,000 kids lose their lives from preventable accidents and injuries: for children under one, the leading cause of death is suffocation. For children 1-4, it's drowning, and for kids 5-19 its automobile accidents.
The message here is simple--with some common sense, a little parental education, perhaps some legislation and just a little money, a lot of parents would live to see their kids grow up.
Yet one has to wonder where our priorities are when it comes to our kids in this country. This news I just read to you didn't show up in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or USA Today. It wasn't discussed on CNN. Instead, I read about it in a small tabloid published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent out just to those of us who are members (ie, doctors who are pediatricians)
Enter Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociologist at the University of Southern California. A decade ago, I read and was struck by Dr. Glassner's book The Culture of Fear. In it, he asked a simple question: "Why are so many fears in the air, and so many of them unfounded?" He went on to show readers that, indeed, raw data doesn't support our fears about many issues we hear about in the media, that even though it bleeds, it shouldn't lead.
He focused an entire chapter on children and their health: "Youth at Risk: Faulty Diagnoses and Callous Cures."
"America's children face far graver dangers than parents realize. Journalists, politicians and advocacy organizations reiterate that conclusion incessantly. " is how Dr. Glassner began that chapter.
But those dangers, he pointed out, weren't the things we've been hearing about, deconstructing hype about teen suicide, attention deficit disorder, crack babies, youth crime, and many other hot button isues on the way.
One example he used was about the "epidemic" of youth gambling, which received a lot of media coverage during the 1990s (USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, and others ran extensive pieces about it), to the point that "every parent ought to worry about whether her son or daughter has become addicted to gambling."
But Glassner pointed out that the statistics were weak, and that most kids who made friendly bets about the Super Bowl with their pals or just bought a Lotto ticket. And kids who did gamble did so due to other underlying problems--an outlet for depression, anxiety or abuse. Once those stresses eased, so did their gambling.
Another example, crack babies, big during the 1980s and early 1990s, a topic that graced many headlines and magazine covers--"Just to get one crack baby ready for school costs $40,000 per year...for all 8974 babies [identified nationally] taht oculd add up to $1.5 billion before they are 5 years old!"
But despite hype like that, the media flip-flopped when research (much of it emerging during the time they were stigmatizing crack babies) showed that kids were functioning much like their peers, and that many of the problems of drug-exposed babies were due to poor socioeconomic conditions they were born into--fight poverty to fight crack. But who listened?
Trends like this seem to continue unabated. We have advocacy groups out there screaming loudly about "epidemics" of peanut allergies, autism, and other child health "emergencies." (how many of us really know what an epidemic really is, other than alarmist sentiment?). While these problems certainly aren't trivial problems for children, parents, or society, our fear seems to be out of proportion to reality ie, the statistics that measure them.
On the other hand, consider how hard it is for a group like the National Safe Kids Campaign, which advocates for injury prevention, to get traction. Ever seen them on Larry King Live?
Mom and dad, what about your ungated, uncovered swimming pool? How about a World Injury Prevention Day to put things into perspective for all of us?
Injuries bleed, so why can't they lead?
________________________________________________
As an aside, Dr. Glasser and I exchanged emails recently--he told me his publisher is putting out an updated version which will address some more current issues..


Salon.com
Comments
Yes, thanks for writing about a very "unsexy" topic. You are just so spot on though, that it's much easier for those who report the news to get attenntion with a lead-in like "crack baby", as opposed to reporting something that is actually wisespread and in many cases, preventable.
Cheers from a fellow Walnut Creekian.
Oh, and accidents happen with tuna cans too! We lost power today, and while mu hubby was using an actual manual can opener to make lunch, he ripped his hand open on the tin lid! Off to JMMC for some stitches!
That said, I'm not sure the occurrence of injuries is due to parental ignorance or negligence; being a parent myself, I believe their ability to get into danger exceeds mine to keep them out of it. Also, since one of them has a peanut allergy (an "epidemic" to which a fair bit of attention has been paid), I can say that when you know firsthand how troublesome a sensationalized danger can be, the stats don't matter so much, and the thing that causes the fear is real.
But you bring up a lot of good points; we can't let fear take the place of good judgment or of dispassionate examination of the facts, the crack baby issue being an EXCELLENT example.
Sorry so long-winded. Should have made my response its own post. Just means you did a good job of getting me thinking. Rated.
thanks!
thanks--Actually, I do know Dr. Greene--he's a great author and thoughtful pediatrician. his website, drgreene.com has great practical advice for parents
thanks for reading--and ow!
how come you lost power in the WC?
thanks for reading--I agree with you--having a one year at home, I'm always impressed how she can find the one thing I've missed childproofing. They're like magnets for danger. I need that robot from Lost In Space around to you scream "Danger Danger!"
I had them around for crafting purposes and never let him near a magnet for the first three years.
The drowning problem is tragic. I live at the beach and see how kids let their children play in rip tides and tough surf. 1-6 people die on our shores each season, and about 1/3 are children.
And that isn't accounting for pools.
I noticed the stat was 5-19. Does it break it out to 5-16, to exclude teen drivers?
This is way better than Dr. Spock...... This is actually useful!
Trying for a little mise-en-scene, the authors write, "...they drink endless cups of coffee and smoke cigarette after cigarette." Now, complaining you can't get Lipitor while smoking "cigarette after cigarette" is an activity that makes rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic seem like an eminently sensible pastime by comparison.
Say again, which is the fear-mongering and which is the statistical reality?
The CDC report, maddeningly, doesn't give a breakdown for other age groups -- the entire report spends about 1 page on unintentional injuries in the broader context of all causes of childhood death and then moves on.
But the WHO statistics for high-income countries suggest that "non-injury" factors remain the predominant causes of death until adolescence, when vehicle injuries take over.
Honestly, I'm surprised by how little of a factor unintentional injury is in the deaths of children under 5. I would have expected it to be higher. But expectations do not equal facts.
Yes, it's good to keep plastic bags from infants and it's good to supervise toddlers around water. But it would appear that reducing non-injury deaths and intentional-injury deaths are the decisive factors in reducing early childhood fatalities -- presumably that means better healthcare, and greater commitment to preventing child abuse.
Neither of those make for very exciting copy though. And of course effective public health requires that citizens care about someone else's kids, instead of being content with minimizing already-minute risks to their own.
Say again, which is the fear-mongering and which is the statistical reality?
The CDC report, maddeningly, doesn't give a breakdown for other age groups -- the entire report spends about 1 page on unintentional injuries in the broader context of all causes of childhood death and then moves on.
But the WHO statistics for high-income countries suggest that "non-injury" factors remain the predominant causes of death until adolescence, when vehicle injuries take over.
Honestly, I'm surprised by how little of a factor unintentional injury is in the deaths of children under 5. I would have expected it to be higher. But expectations do not equal facts.
Yes, it's good to keep plastic bags from infants and it's good to supervise toddlers around water. But it would appear that reducing non-injury deaths and intentional-injury deaths are the decisive factors in reducing early childhood fatalities -- presumably that means better healthcare, and greater commitment to preventing child abuse.
Neither of those make for very exciting copy though. And of course effective public health requires that citizens care about someone else's kids, instead of being content with minimizing already-minute risks to their own.
I find that whenever a new "danger" comes out, I'm cynical. My teen worries in the 70s about the new ice age coming and glaciers to once again cover New England make it hard for me to take Global Warming seriously.
Having had a kid get badly burned on a cup of tea (10 day in the hospital), I will say since then, I'm appalled at how frequently I see parents holding hot beverages with a very squirmy child on the lap.
I don't the know the answer as to how they broke it down.
magnets can be a problem because they could cause intestinal blockage if they're big enough and stick to each other--best to always call poison control as well 800-876-4766
"Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
Nobody like Mencken anymore! so true, so right
good point--part of health reform will be staring patients down as well, not just doctors.
thanks for breaking down the stats for us
You raise an excellent point--hype is always ahead of science and the ambition for everybody (scientists, industry, the media) to take advantage of a newsworthy story to fill the news cycle unfortunately trumps the patience we need to get better science done