Infant Mortality

[MWS]

With the high mortality rate for children in the past I do wonder how our ancestors dealt with this ever present threat. Was it viewed as big a tragedy as it would be now or was it just accepted as a fact of life? How did parents who lost multiple and sometimes all their children cope? It's hard to imagine. And would they feel bitter to family and neighbours that lost none?

For Birmingham were there specific streets that had a higher mortality rate than others? Did people who had lived in the city all their life lose more children than those who had recently moved here?

From my own ancestors in the late 19thc my mom's great grandparents lost 7 of 8 children before the age of 3, whilst my dad's grandparents lost none of 11 (2 to flu, aged 6 & 9) though they lived fairly near each other in duddeston at the same time.

In Aston in 1885 there were 8404 births registered, 1171 (14%) deaths registered for children aged 0, 335 aged 1 and 114 aged 2. 19.25% in total.

Twenty years later there were 9862 births, 1430 (14.5%) deaths aged 0, 393 aged 1 and 146 aged 2. Just under 20% in total.

For some reason I thought it would have been less.

 

[Morturn]

There is a tendency to assume that our ancestors and other cultures were not as intelligent as ourselves or could they form the emotional bonds that we have.

None of this is correct of course with the hindsight of modern technology that seems to provide solutions to the not so sophisticated problems.

There has been a lot of study done on patterns of infant mortality in the UK that make it difficult to gain a single overall picture or cause. Most certainly poverty and inequality factor strongly as the industrial revolution took hold. The rate of nineteenth century urbanisation in the UK was phenomenal. The rest of Europe not catching up until the early 1950’s.

There are strong relationships between infant mortality rates and population density, fertility, female tuberculosis mortality, female illiteracy, male wages, epidemics like cholera and typhoid etc.

I think it is also interesting that when the medical profession started its well intended interventions in childbirth, infant and paternal mortality went up due to infection caused by doctors, with them not knowing about or understanding germ theory. Fortunately, John Snow, Louis Pasteur and Robert Kock were able to provide proofs for the germ theory of diseases.

We look back at those times as the golden age. It was for some, but a majority of the population lived in destitution where emotions around mortality got in the way of just surviving.

 

[MWS]

They probably had little choice but I can imagine many people who moved to the city from the countryside must have been shocked by the conditions they found themselves living in and the deaths when they were hoping for a better life,

 

[Morturn]

I agree, on the face of it the industrial towns looked unattractive, but in reality they were a far better option than working on the land. While the nineteenth century did bring about improvements in production there was still a significant famine in around 1840. Regular wages in industry did at least give working people some form of food security.

Regarding all the downsides of occupational heath problems, people today still complain like mad about health and safety.

 

[Richard Dye]

With the high mortality rate for children in the past I do wonder how our ancestors dealt with this ever present threat. Was it viewed as big a tragedy as it would be now or was it just accepted as a fact of life? How did parents who lost multiple and sometimes all their children cope? It's hard to imagine. And would they feel bitter to family and neighbours that lost none?

For Birmingham were there specific streets that had a higher mortality rate than others? Did people who had lived in the city all their life lose more children than those who had recently moved here?

From my own ancestors in the late 19thc my mom's great grandparents lost 7 of 8 children before the age of 3, whilst my dad's grandparents lost none of 11 (2 to flu, aged 6 & 9) though they lived fairly near each other in duddeston at the same time.

In Aston in 1885 there were 8404 births registered, 1171 (14%) deaths registered for children aged 0, 335 aged 1 and 114 aged 2. 19.25% in total.

Twenty years later there were 9862 births, 1430 (14.5%) deaths aged 0, 393 aged 1 and 146 aged 2. Just under 20% in total.

For some reason I thought it would have been less.

MWS, I think the mortality rate was unfortunately the norm and accepted! In our family there were two or three infant deaths and others around us. When I think of my grandmother’s house on Alfred St, she was always cleaning but there were 8 or 9 people living there with VERY poor sanitation and a shared outhouse, non of which most today would not understand let alone tolerate!

 

[Richard Dye]

There is a tendency to assume that our ancestors and other cultures were not as intelligent as ourselves or could they form the emotional bonds that we have.

None of this is correct of course with the hindsight of modern technology that seems to provide solutions to the not so sophisticated problems.

There has been a lot of study done on patterns of infant mortality in the UK that make it difficult to gain a single overall picture or cause. Most certainly poverty and inequality factor strongly as the industrial revolution took hold. The rate of nineteenth century urbanisation in the UK was phenomenal. The rest of Europe not catching up until the early 1950’s.

There are strong relationships between infant mortality rates and population density, fertility, female tuberculosis mortality, female illiteracy, male wages, epidemics like cholera and typhoid etc.

I think it is also interesting that when the medical profession started its well intended interventions in childbirth, infant and paternal mortality went up due to infection caused by doctors, with them not knowing about or understanding germ theory. Fortunately, John Snow, Louis Pasteur and Robert Kock were able to provide proofs for the germ theory of diseases.

We look back at those times as the golden age. It was for some, but a majority of the population lived in destitution where emotions around mortality got in the way of just surviving.

Mort, I think you are spot on. Pre Industrial Revolution, infant mortality was alive and well at all socioeconomic levels mostly at the lower levels. Regarding the Industrial Revolution, we would have little today without it, unfortunately it served as a magnet to draw people into the cities and with it the inequalities you state above.
In the Fisher and Ludlow thread there is a picture of a press to make car body parts, today you would not even recognize what is used. People have been smart and sensitive forever, starting from and with nothing.

 

[Richard Dye]

I agree, on the face of it the industrial towns looked unattractive, but in reality they were a far better option than working on the land. While the nineteenth century did bring about improvements in production there was still a significant famine in around 1840. Regular wages in industry did at least give working people some form of food security.

Regarding all the downsides of occupational heath problems, people today still complain like mad about health and safety.

Exactly! Working on the land is very seasonal, try working in a field when it rains or snows. Seasonality is still a big problem even in today’s world at many levels.

 

[Pedrocut]

May be of interest.
HEALTH OF ASTON MANOR…During the year ending December 31st, 1894,

“Infantile Death rate. — The infantile death-rate, or proportion of deaths under a year to the number of infants born in the year is 13 6, which is 5.1 lower than last year, when it was 18.7 and 1.3 lower than the average of the previous twelve years.”

Annual Report of the Health of Aston Manor for the year ending December 31st 1894 : Aston Manor (Birmingham, England). Urban District Council : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Annual report of births; deaths; infectious disease & prevention; hospital; sanitary work; vital statistics; food & drugs

archive.org

 

[Richard Dye]

I agree, on the face of it the industrial towns looked unattractive, but in reality they were a far better option than working on the land. While the nineteenth century did bring about improvements in production there was still a significant famine in around 1840. Regular wages in industry did at least give working people some form of food security.

Regarding all the downsides of occupational heath problems, people today still complain like mad about health and safety.

Exactly! Working on the land is very seasonal, try working in a field when it rains or snows. Seasonality is still a big problem even in today’s world at many levels.

 

[Morturn]

Mort, I think you are spot on. Pre Industrial Revolution, infant mortality was alive and well at all socioeconomic levels mostly at the lower levels. Regarding the Industrial Revolution, we would have little today without it, unfortunately it served as a magnet to draw people into the cities and with it the inequalities you state above.
In the Fisher and Ludlow thread there is a picture of a press to make car body parts, today you would not even recognize what is used. People have been smart and sensitive forever, starting from and with nothing.

You right in my opinion, the industrial revolution did bring about a lot of long term benefits. The problem was as I see was inequality. Other countries did things a lot better as can now be seen in average life expectancy, health, and levels of education.

 

[Richard Dye]

May be of interest.
HEALTH OF ASTON MANOR…During the year ending December 31st, 1894,

“Infantile Death rate. — The infantile death-rate, or proportion of deaths under a year to the number of infants born in the year is 13 6, which is 5.1 lower than last year, when it was 18.7 and 1.3 lower than the average of the previous twelve years.”

Annual Report of the Health of Aston Manor for the year ending December 31st 1894 : Aston Manor (Birmingham, England). Urban District Council : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Annual report of births; deaths; infectious disease & prevention; hospital; sanitary work; vital statistics; food & drugs

archive.org

If you compare the birth to death rates, the % is an extremely high number, staggering. Far higher I’m sure than today.

 

[Richard Dye]

You right in my opinion, the industrial revolution did bring about a lot of long term benefits. The problem was as I see was inequality. Other countries did things a lot better as can now be seen in average life expectancy, health, and levels of education.

Totally agree with that. Unfortunately I think inequality is still alive and well.

 

[Morturn]

It is indeed, and I don’t think is possible or desirable to remove it completely. Certainly, low infant mortality is a good measure of substantiality

 

[Tuppenny Rice]

In the past people tried to not get too attached to newborns too soon. So if a baby died within hours of birth, they might not name it. Naming of stillborn children wasn't done generally (you still don't have to when you register one in the UK, although most people do). The elite sent babies a few days old out to actually live with wetnurses, and brought them home when weaned (eg all the children in Jane Austens family). I think nowadays we see birth as a baby being 'done' but they weren't so hasty. Charles and Emma Darwin lost several small children, but the only one he seems really cut up about in his diaries was a girl of about 6.

 

[Richard Dye]

In the past people tried to not get too attached to newborns too soon. So if a baby died within hours of birth, they might not name it. Naming of stillborn children wasn't done generally (you still don't have to when you register one in the UK, although most people do). The elite sent babies a few days old out to actually live with wetnurses, and brought them home when weaned (eg all the children in Jane Austens family). I think nowadays we see birth as a baby being 'done' but they weren't so hasty. Charles and Emma Darwin lost several small children, but the only one he seems really cut up about in his diaries was a girl of about 6.

Welcome to the Forum envy, enjoy!

 

[MWS]

And to be a little contrary I wonder how parents struggling with lots of children felt when they discovered that they were going to have another child. If there were already half a dozen or so children to feed, would they have felt happy or just despair. And that's not even considering what the woman felt about the actual birth.

Difficult to be certain from the censuses but I have a number of instances of nieces or nephews from large families living with their parents' siblings who had none or few children. A common practice possibly.

 

[Richard Dye]

And to be a little contrary I wonder how parents struggling with lots of children felt when they discovered that they were going to have another child. If there were already half a dozen or so children to feed, would they have felt happy or just despair. And that's not even considering what the woman felt about the actual birth.

Difficult to be certain from the censuses but I have a number of instances of nieces or nephews from large families living with their parents' siblings who had none or few children. A common practice possibly.

Excellent question, and back in the day large families were far from the exception.

 

[Morturn]

Most certainly they did, my great grandmother had fifteen children. Three died quite young, one died in WWI and another died possibly from the effects of being gassed in WWI a few years later.

 

[MWS]

Difficult to imagine how large families managed to live. My g grandfather was also one of fifteen and in 1861 there were 10 (with another imminent) listed in what must have been only a small cottage/house in rural Oxfordshire (father was just an ag lab).

No way of knowing if my g grandfather was hoping for an improvement when he moved to Bham but 30 years later in 1891 he was in a similar situation, with his wife and 7 children (another on the way) in a house in Dollman St.

And I'm sure there were others with even more.

 

[Morturn]

Looking at my family history made me think of the quality of life they had. My maternal great grandmother who had the fifteen children seemed to have a reasonable quality of life. Her husband was quite an entrepreneur who could turn his hand to most things.

The was a 2x great grandparent on my father’s side who lived a whole life in a back to back house and died while still working in his eighties. He was a cabinet maker whom I would have thought should have had a better quality of life. Unfortunately, labour at his time was cheap.

 

[Richard Dye]

Difficult to imagine how large families managed to live. My g grandfather was also one of fifteen and in 1861 there were 10 (with another imminent) listed in what must have been only a small cottage/house in rural Oxfordshire (father was just an ag lab).

No way of knowing if my g grandfather was hoping for an improvement when he moved to Bham but 30 years later in 1891 he was in a similar situation, with his wife and 7 children (another on the way) in a house in Dollman St.

And I'm sure there were others with even more.

And in those days there was little in the way comforts that we take for granted today!

 

[Richard Dye]

Looking at my family history made me think of the quality of life they had. My maternal great grandmother who had the fifteen children seemed to have a reasonable quality of life. Her husband was quite an entrepreneur who could turn his hand to most things.

The was a 2x great grandparent on my father’s side who lived a whole life in a back to back house and died while still working in his eighties. He was a cabinet maker whom I would have thought should have had a better quality of life. Unfortunately, labour at his time was cheap.

Mort, I think many back in those days, some in our lifetime, more than we realize worked until we could not trying to get that better quality of life.

 

[Bardess]

Apart from TB/Cholera/Typhoid I'd like to add Venereal Disease to the pot [which was rife]; also there were many mother/baby deaths during or post the actual birthing process.

 

[MWS]

And yet - despite the overcrowding, the diseases, the unsanitary conditions, the hard work, the smog, the poor diet and, in some cases, the heavy smoking and drinking - some people lived into their 70s, 80s and beyond.

My g grandparents (paternal) who moved to Bham in their 20s both died at 84 in the 30s and my 3 x g grandmother (maternal) died at 94 in 1914 having lived most of her life in Bham, and that was an accident rather than old age.