Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 9 – Given the
bloody history of the USSR, few in either Russia or the West are surprised by
the discovery of mass graves from the Soviet period. But the appearance of new
mass graves in a Russian region, in this case of infants who were stillborn or
died shortly after birth, is something else again.
Last week, Stavropol and federal
news outlets reported “the mass burial of children” on one day in a Stavropol
hospital and provided photographs showing that all were buried on one day,
Anton Chablin reports. Some were stillborn and none of the others had reached
the age of 18 months, judging from the crosses erected at the site (yug.svpressa.ru/society/article/128292/).
Many Russians were even more shocked,
the journalist continues, when local health officials said that “such burials
are alas something quite ordinary,” given that in Stavropol kray alone “about
400 children die” in birthing facilities. As a result, Vladimir Polubaryenko,
deputy human rights ombudsman, demanded an independent investigation.
The ombudsman said that a cemetery
worker confirmed that all the children were buried on the same day but refused
to say more because his bosses had forbidden him to respond to such questions.
Polubaryenko said that in his view “children shouldn’t be buried in this way,
without a priest or relatives.”
His remarks, Chablin continues, prompted
Natalya Kozlova, the deputy health minister in the kray, to tell the media that
the children buried on that one day were all stillborn and not children of
various ages as had been reported. And she noted that “in the majority of
cases,” relatives did not claim the remains, forcing officials to “periodically”
bury them.
At the same time, she announced that
the health ministry would convene a conference to “clarify all the details
which had attracted the attention of journalists. One error clearly has to be
corrected, she said: the tablets on the graves should indicate the date of
death “and not the date of burial.”
Under the terms of a 1996 federal
law, stillborn children are buried without charge to the parents. The federal
government provides subsidies to the regions and the regions in turn hand the
money to municipalities. The last are
responsible for paying for ritual services, Chablin continues.
Three years ago, Russia changed its
approach to the definition of infant mortality to bring it into compliance with
WHO standards. Prior to that time, it had been operating under a Stalin-era
instruction from the Peoples Commissariat for Health. The new rules have lowered the weight of a
child at birth and as a result boosted infant mortality figures in 2012 by 16
percent in Russia as a whole and by 27 percent in Stavropol kray alone.
(Until the change was made, Russian
and earlier Soviet figures underreported infant mortality because doctors in
the USSR and then the RSFSR did not count as live births babies who
subsequently died if their birth weight was below a much higher figure than the
WHO has established as the norm.)
At present, infant mortality in
Stavropol in 10.4 deaths per 1,000 births – or 381 deaths among those declared
to have been born alive who died before their first birthday. Many of these, Chablin says, were among
children of women from the neighboring republics of the North Caucasus.
Neonatalogists now can keep even
extremely low birthrate children from dying, but they need special facilities
and equipment; and this is neither inexpensive nor uncontroversial, given that
many of these children often grow up with defects that doctors cannot correct
later, the journalist says.
Those who oppose making the
investment to keep such low birthweight children alive argue that they will not
only place enormous burdens on their families and societies but also will
impose “a so-called ‘genetic burden’ on the population” because they may pass
on their defects to future generations, Chablin says.
“But,” he adds, “deeply patriarchal
Russian society is simply not prepared for this.” And consequently the
appearance of pictures of “a ‘medical’ cemetery of stillborn infants generates an
inadequate internet reaction rather than attempts to thoughtfully reflect about
what should be done with these little babies and why there are so stupefyingly
many of them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment