<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: birth rate</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'birth rate'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22birth+rate%22&t=%22birth+rate%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:58:29 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Smoking and SIDS – CDC finds a link</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3880849&amp;cid=t_104993_87_f&amp;fid=36941&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mazecordblood.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D636</link>
            <description>Oi.
We all know about the dangers of smoking and pregnancy, low birth rate, the impact of second-hand smoke; we even posted a link to a study on smoking and the use of psychiatric medications (see our May 13th post).
The Center for Disease Control just published another report regarding smoking mothers, low birth rate and infant death.  This is morbid, we realize. But important information if you are, or know, a smoking mother-to-be:
Here are the stats: 5 percent to 7 percent of deaths among the premature infants &amp;#8212; and 23 percent to 34 percent of deaths caused by SIDS &amp;#8212; could have been prevented if the mother had not smoked.
A horror, isn&amp;#8217;t it?  Pass this on to those who might need to read it&amp;#8230; (Source: Cord Blood News)</description>
            <author>Cord Blood News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3880849</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:32:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3880849</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Antidepressants During Pregnancy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2389936&amp;cid=t_104993_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F05%2F04%2Fantidepressants-during-pregnancy%2F</link>
            <description>This study joins three others that have also found a similar threefold risk of preterm births when a mother is taking an antidepressant.
But there&amp;#8217;s hope for expecting mothers who are currently on an antidepressant and want to avoid the possibility of a preterm birth:

[W]e found that partial exposure to either SSRIs or depression did not increase the risk for preterm birth. Similarly, [other research] reported that mothers who discontinued SSRIs before the third trimester (similar to our group with partial exposure) had a preterm birth rate comparable to the rate for comparison subjects, while mothers with third-trimester exposure (82% treated throughout pregnancy) had an increased rate.

In other words, it appears that discontinuing antidepressant medications only for the third tri...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2389936</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 22:35:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2389936</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Endocrine Disruptors Skewing Birth Ratio in US and Japan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1223726&amp;cid=t_104993_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F233422659%2Fendocrine-disruptors-skewing-birth.html</link>
            <description>From the polar ice cap to the middle of the world, comes study after study linking synthetic chemicals and their lethal properties, to a reported steady decline in the number of boys born each...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] (Source: Women's Bioethics Blog)</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1223726</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:12:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1223726</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Poland Launches Pro-Family Programme</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=486720&amp;cid=t_104993_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomensbioethics.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F03%2Fpoland-launches-pro-family-programme.html</link>
            <description>Several news sources are reporting that Poland is launching a fertility drive aimed at increasing its shrinking population. Poland ranks at the bottom of the EU's birth rate of 1.22 children per women, and some analysts suggest that by 2030, there will be four million fewer Poles, leading to economic disaster and worker shortage. Now you would think that, as a very Catholic country, family would be incredibly important. In fact, having a family does consistently rank as one of the most important things in the lives of the Poles, er, poled. So we have a very Catholic, pro-family country with a rapidly declining birth rate - obviously there's an issue somewhere. As it turns out, that issue is in how Polish women are treated in the workplace. A majority of women are afraid that they'll lose t...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=486720</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:04:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">486720</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

