Why did so many victorian children die during childbirth?

Question

hOW MANY
Why

Answer 1

The Victorians didn't have things like drugs to control hemorrhage of blood after the birth, advanced resuscitation procedures or safe invasive procedures like Cesarean section.

Antibiotics weren't invented until 1928 so infection was probably the biggest problem.

Answer 2

You needn't pick on the Victorian era alone. Infant mortality dropped during the twentieth century because of advances in sanitation, nutrition, and health care.
In the early 20th century in New York (sorry I can't recall the reference) there was a report of 3 C-sections, with all 3 babies not surviving, compared to I think 4 babies being born via the mothers being gored by bulls, with 2 of the babies surviving. And we do have antibiotics and vaccinations now. Sometimes in the midst of all the tubes and monitors, and the worries about nosocomial infections with drug-resistant bacteria, I wonder, but I hope our techniques are a little better these days.

Answer 3

It wasn't just based on Victorian children. If you really want to see death tolls, take a peek at African poverty, or the children who perished during WWII.

The great Victorian age, even though the world went through it, Europe was the supreme to the age of it. This is where the classic A Christmas Carol takes place. The reason why children died was because first of the overcrowding of Europe at the time. Second, medicine was in its infancy in Europe. In the states of America, medicine was basic, was everyday scientists and physicians were claiming new and revolutionary articles of medicine and science.

With thr overcrowding of towns and villages, cities and districts, it was impossible for local governments to span their medical practices, doctors couldn't be taught fast enough. Not many even wanted to practice for fear of them too becoming deathly ill. At the time, diseases in England, Amsterdam, France, Scotland and surrounding European countries, especially Italy all had new and raging illnesses that couldn't be diagnosed and quarantied quick enough. So, what happened, children, like the elderly have low tolerances to illnesses picked these up the fastest and they mutated and spread.

The conditions in the over populated towns as well helped for diseases to spread quicker. As for the exact number of how many children died from such illnesses, that number really can't ever be known. Records do go back that far in Britain and it's neighboring nations, however, these records are probably in the hands of physicians and research scientists of major teaching institutions and libraries in Europe, or possibly even the government. I can honestly say, between the start of the Victorian age, 1837 to 1901, most likely 10 to 15,000 children. Because if you think about this. In those days, many families lived poorly in the major industrial regions of the cities for workking purposes. Many families had four+ children, sometimes as many as nine or ten all living in confined spaces in terrible parts of the city. They couldn't sometimes afford medical care like their neighbors who in essence were the sons and daughters to the governor or the commissioner of the city.

In essence, medical care then was primitive. Care was only held aside for the most elite of the day. Vaccinations, well, when they did come out for reserved for those who could be guaranteed to pay for them. Most children who did die of such diseases, were no older than newborn to just a few years old. While the ones that died suddenly were between 13 and 17. Still, the ones who developed illnesses and were bedridden for months were ranged between 10 and 13.

Answer 4

hello, well during the victorian era they were not very up on the cleanliness of hospital wards and children could pick up infections easier, also there was not epidural so mums suffered alot during childbirth and got distressed, causing the baby to panic and there was no anesthetic which could kill bacteria, also dont forget the likelyhood of the mother carrying disease such as diptheria and shingles which can be passed to the baby in the womb causing babies to be very ill. the levels of nursing was low & very limited skills were a factor. infections/disease or illness such as chronic bronchitus or downs synderome could not be treated as there were not the resources or the knowledge too treat them, so babys died from lack of fast treatment sometimes. hope this helps xx

Answer 5

Everyone is correct with their answers. One further thing to note is that obstetrics were still developing - meaning that doctors were first becoming equipt to deal with complications such as breach births. They struggled to used things such as forceps, some even "showing off" how good they were by unneccesarily turning the baby in the womb. This often proved deadly. Until tools of obstetrics were mastered, death rates remained high.

Answer 6

There was a documentary on that many years ago under the title:'A century of medicine.'
Basically,the people of that period did not have knowledge of germs and the mode of infection.

Answer 7

I think back then it was just due to poor health care. They don't have the technologies we do now. They couldn't do ultrasounds to see if the baby was in the right position, they couldn't induce labor if necessary.

Answer 8

Infections due to lack of
(a) hygiene,
(b) antiseptics and
(c) antibiotics.