Dalton Conley’s “The Starting Gate” provides an interesting perspective on low birth weights in relation to biology, genetics and society. The combination of nature and nurture that the book uses to explain low birth weight seems like a logical way to try and explain why we see a higher percentage of low birth weight in the black community than we do in the white community. However, I believe that the relation to income of the parents has a greater affect on the overall health of the baby than genetic factors. Higher income results in more healthcare possibilities such as adequate nutrition and health attention by doctors than a family with low income would. This provides the baby with a better chance of beating any previous genetic conditions that could result in lower birth-weight like it does with any other illness that may be caused by genetics. On average, white couples have a higher economic standing than black couples. I think this has more of an affect on there being a higher percentage of black parents producing a low-birth weight child than their race. Even though there may be some genetic factors that lead to a lower birth-weight of a child, the evidence that this book puts forth, especially in the section of immigrant Mexican families compared to the families that have been in America for a longer period of time, show that these issues can be beat. People who have lived in America longer have access to better healthcare and proper nutrition that can lead to a healthy baby.
Problems such as drinking, smoking, and other harmful activities during pregnancy are more related to knowledge than income. People with higher economic standing are more likely to have more education than people with a lower economic standing which can account for this gap in the probability of lower birth weights as well. This is not to say that all families with a low income do not possess the knowledge to produce a healthy baby. This is simply pointing out that the chances that the mother partook in activities that decreased the chances of producing a healthy baby are higher in a low-income household. Out of all the examples that Conley states, I believe that society has a greater affect on the outcome of the baby’s health than its genetics or biology.
I would have to say I agree with the argument in this post. While it is clear that genetics does play a factor in birth weight, and other health related issues, it seems to me that society plays a greater role than one might think. While the book does argue that not having proper prenatal care could be considered a biological factor, I feel that it is in fact more related to socioeconomic status than biology. The proper prenatal care is almost entirely dependent upon the mother, therefore if she does not have enough money or resources available to her to keep her unborn child healthy, there is a high risk for low birth rate.
ReplyDeleteThough on a slightly different subject, I think this article from the New York Times is relevant to our discussion of low birth weight: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?_r=1&hp. The article discusses some of the controversy over the recent ruling that requires insurance plans to provide birth control at no cost to the patient. There are many benefits to this new policy discussed in the article, one being that there will be fewer unplanned pregnancies, and therefore fewer abortions. It goes on to cite the Institute of Medicine, saying "women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to be depressed and to smoke, drink and delay or skip prenatal care, potentially harming fetuses and putting babies at increased risk of being born prematurely and having low birth weight". I think this is another interesting example of the argument for nurture rather than nature.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete