Maternal Deaths By the Numbers

<a href="http://maternalhealthtaskforce.org/images/infographic%20one%20year.jpg">Maternal Health Task Force</a> via Fair Use

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Today I stumbled upon this nicely designed infographic by the Maternal Health Task Force on annual maternal deaths globally. According to the graphic, India comes in first in maternal mortality with 68,310 deaths a year, followed by Nigeria (36,666) and Pakistan (20,091). These numbers are absolute totals, so it makes sense that India would have the most maternal deaths: they have the most deaths because they have the highest population. If you look at these numbers per capita instead of as totals, the context changes somewhat.

For example, using the same WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/World Bank report the infographic was based on, India’s per capita maternal mortality rate in 2008 was actually middle-of-the-road at 230 deaths per 100,000 people, while Nigeria’s was much higher (840 per 100,000). So while the graph shows that India has the most maternal deaths in the world, it may be much riskier to be a mother in a country like Afghanistan (1400 deaths per 100,000) or Somalia (1200 deaths per 100,000).

It’s also compelling that the OECD countries (developed countries with high standards of living) make up such a small portion of deaths in the chart. This is true by absolute numbers of deaths, but it’s notable within the OECD group there is a decent amount of variance. For example, most OECD countries have very low death rates: Sweden has 5 maternal deaths per 100,000 people, Greece has 2, and Ireland has 3. The US is at the high end of the OECD range, with 24 deaths per 100,000: the same rate as Saudi Arabia and nearly five times Sweden’s rate.

I guess my point here is that there are lots of ways to juggle the numbers, and ultimately I find the death rate per capita more useful than the total number of deaths. I also think charts like these obscure the point that the relative wealth and size of a country do have an affect on its maternal mortality, but they’re not everything. At the end of the day, I find it disheartening that a rich country like the US, which prides itself on its treatment of women, has the same maternal mortality rate as a country that doesn’t let women drive and a worse rate than countries with a fraction of its GDP per capita.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate