Child survival
Crossing the River of Myth
The avuncular Hans Rosling was back recently staunchly arguing why child mortality is more readily overcome now than ever before. He shows that it is our dated perspective mistakenly informed through myth we cling to that which holds us back. We are closer to a solution than we think or know.
Let Hans tell the story himself below:
Race against time
Does it really matter if the Millennium Development Goals are not achieved? Of the eight goals set, there are a few that will be achieved (or have already been satisfied) before the 2015 time horizon. Others might not cut it.
Child mortality is one of those measures that is looking doubtful of meeting the 2/3 reduction of 1990 measurement of under-five death before 2015.
It is a race against time, and we as a global community as close to halving the 1990 level. Reduced from around 12 million deaths of under-five children in 1990 to an approximated 6.4 million deaths in 2013.
The stunt which frames the 10 City Bridge Run will illustrate this through running across two distances:
- 2.4 km. A participative run involving a large group running 2.4 km together across a bridge. There are 2.4 million children too many dying this year in 2013 above what is required to achieve the Millennium Development Goal 4 (reduce child mortality by 2/3 from 1990 levels before 2015).
- Half-Marathon. 10 half-marathons will be run in 10 cities across 10 countries as a stunt to show we have halved 1990 levels, and while that is good, it is now a race against time in this marathon journey to end child mortality.
This running is framing the conversation asking: “how can we use our networks to improve the delivery of child survival?”
There are a lot of people who have been working hard on this issue for more years than I have been aware of it. How can we find, learn about, then share best practice to make a difference in the lives of literally millions of people where the need is at its greatest?
This is a race we want to win. Together.
Reframe: Improving Child Survival
My last post was a month ago, but in that space of time I have covered a very large distance in many different respects. I wrote as I travelled from Sydney to London to attend the Commonwealth Study Conference, otherwise known as CSCLeaders. That trip proved to be a turn-key moment in gaining a new sense of clarity about this initiative.
It has taken me some time to process everything that has taken place. One month in fact. There is much to share, but here I just wanted to start with one brief comment.
I have reframed the 10 City Bridge Run following the input of many people and much reading over the last month. The emphasis, I believe, needs to be placed on child survival not child mortality.
Let me explain why:
- Child mortality is easy to explain, and is a very tangible and very troubling measure.
- The 10 City Bridge Run is an initiative about how we might use our networks for the better.
- I have come to the realisation that together we cannot actually reduce child mortality. Larger organisations and countries can through their effort, but even then the reduction of child mortality is a lagging indicator of their success in something else.
- Where we can have success is in improving child survival. Through increased child survival, the result is a reduction of child mortality.
This is a subtle shift, but an important one. It means the entire effort goes towards working out what we can do to save lives, rather than spending time recording facts about deaths. Yes, the two go hand-in-glove, but as for directing the efforts of a network, we are better focused on documenting what is best practice in child survival.
Already, there is good data. It is shared widely. But we are still falling short.
This is not about reinventing the wheel, but rather bringing the considerable resources of an extended network of bridge builders to bear on working out where we can best make change to improve child survival.
Just over ago in this blog, I wrote these words:
Changing the name doesn’t change the facts. We are still falling short, and there is more work to be done. But with a renewed focus, maybe at least we can have a clearer view on where our emphasis is best placed.
I didn’t recognise this insight at the time, but now can see that what I had instinctively observed. We are working towards compiling a sharable resource documenting best practice in child survival. This is our journey. Let’s go together!
This video, produced last year, explains this concept well:
From child mortality to child survival: what’s in a name?
Ok, so there seems to be a new phrase entering the lexicon of child health.
‘Child mortality’ is being used less frequently in favour to the use of ‘child survival’.
What’s in a name? Does this really make a difference at all? I think it does. It is a more optimistically framed language, which sets our minds looking towards the solution, rather than the seemingly impossible wall of death to overcome.
Changing the name doesn’t change the facts. We are still falling short, and there is more work to be done. But with a renewed focus, maybe at least we can have a clearer view on where our emphasis is best placed.
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
Building Bridges 