BrainKing - Discussion boards (Politics)

Subject: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Modified by Papa Zoom (21. August 2009, 23:12:40)

U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

22. August 2009, 04:19:40

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger: Nice post AD... I never did challenge Vs assertions on this matter, but I always wondered how we could be so low on the list???

This makes a lot more sense to me now

22. August 2009, 04:48:48

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Czuch: Thanks. Even if Jules assertion was true, it certainly doesn't follow that the US health care system is the corresponding factor for the higher death rates. Even so, it's clear that Jules comment is misleading. It's a conclusion that isn't based on full disclosure. All factors need to be equal and clearly, other countries have different standards in determining infant mortality. Like a dentist who claims his patients have fewer cavities but then it's discovered he doesn't count children under 12 or patients over 20. And he only counts every other tooth. ;)

22. August 2009, 13:36:11

Mort

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger: The comparison on births was between USA and Canada. Have you a breakdown on there method of data collection rather then Europe.

And of the CIA World Factbook, produced for your government?

22. August 2009, 16:51:41

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

(V): No Jules, you have always given some statistic about how the US ranks 30 something in the world in infant mortality rates

but if what AD has shown is true, they are comparing apples to oranges

22. August 2009, 21:28:29

Pedro Martínez

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Modified by Pedro Martínez (22. August 2009, 21:30:23)

Czuch, AD: I think it should be noted that only very few of the countries ranked higher than the United States on the infant mortality list use other criteria for the definition of a live birth than those used in the US. I understand, however, that it is hard to put up with the fact that the noble country, or the nation of beautiful babies, is not ranked anywhere close to the top of the list.

22. August 2009, 21:35:09

Ferris Bueller

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Pedro Martínez: They can't admit that anything is wrong with the US as it is now. It would be "unpatriotic". Besides, admitting anything is wrong might lead to (gulp!) socialism.

23. August 2009, 01:14:33

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Ferris Bueller: Both Czuch and I have admitted to the US having its faults. No country is perfect. But to isolate one factor (a flawed one at that) to make a point regarding US health care shows the weakness in one's argument, not a strength.

23. August 2009, 05:31:33

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger: Thats correct... Jules has consistently made the point that the US health care system is flawed, and uses our infant mortality rate as a good example... again, we are not perfect, but I dont believe we are as flawed as some may want to project.

23. August 2009, 05:41:46

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Ferris Bueller: I can see your point, and agree with you, somewhat.... part of it is patriotic, and socialism is against everything that made our country great in the firsts place....but it doesnt change the fact that our government is a lot worse at running things than is our private industry, more government is NOT the answer

23. August 2009, 15:27:46

Mort

Subject: Re: and socialism is against everything

Czuch: Again... I say, which type of socialism?

And if your private sector is so great.. why is there a crime called corporate manslaughter. Also.... why is it that your health industry is making huge profits at the expense of you the tax payers?

Efficiency can come in many forms and through many types of system.

And btw... looking and your countries declaration of independence... For the people, not for business to take the mickey and exploit your government.

23. August 2009, 17:08:25

Subject: Re: and socialism is against everything

(V): why is there a crime called corporate manslaughter.

A crime is a crime..... you dont change a whole system, just enforce the laws already there to help.

23. August 2009, 19:16:20

Mort

Subject: Re: and socialism is against everything

Czuch: Sigh..... never mind. There was a point but you missed it.

23. August 2009, 01:11:31

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Pedro Martínez: US's ranking on infant mortality as a direct cooresponding factor to the quality of US health care was the connection that was being made. I have shown that making such an analysis based on that single factor is faulty at best. It should concern all Americans that the infant mortality rate is high. But to conclude that it's the fault of the health care system ignores more likely factors. If all data collecting were equal, then the comparisons would have more meaning.

23. August 2009, 09:27:43

Pedro Martínez

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger, Czuch: I'm not saying that the US health care system is of inferior quality. I just wanted to point out that the infant mortality ranking, as available at Wikipedia, for example, is not the same as comparing apples to oranges. I think that it would be better to mark those countries where live births are defined differently, but in general, I would say that the list is a reliable source and should not be deprecated.

The second part of my previous post came from something in me feeling some kind of disgust over the first sentence of the article provided by AD. That is definitely NOT how a serious and professional article should begin. The "patriotism" has already gone too far in the US. Too bad that not many realize that.

24. August 2009, 04:32:43

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Modified by Papa Zoom (24. August 2009, 04:35:07)

Pedro Martínez: "We're a nation of beautiful babies." It wasn't written by a professional journalist but by a doctor. And that first sentence is a simple literary device. It's odd to me that you would be disgusted over reading it. I'm not sure how you took that first sentence but I suspect you read too much into it. And the author's audience is Americans. I doubt that there were many that were disgusted by that sentence. Why were you so put off by it?

24. August 2009, 12:03:38

Mort

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger: What gets me is her abuse of medical advances, your "70%" drop in baby deaths is pretty much what has been happening woldwide with advances in medicine, it's not a purely 'American' thing and as much is a distortion.

Premature babies in the 70's had far less a chance to survive then they do now in any country. That is a fact.

25. August 2009, 00:02:58

Pedro Martínez

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Artful Dodger: Well, AD, if it was written by a professional journalist, I wouldn't be put off by it at all. But this was written by a doctor as a want-to-be scientific article, the goal of which was to prove that the mortality rate of American infants is not as bad as reported. To me, the purpose of the first sentence was to tune the reader to the patriotic frequency, thus distorting the whole view of the issue. There is no place for such "literary devices" in articles of this kind. But yes, maybe I really am reading too much into it, as in general I do agree with the point the doctor is trying to make in that article.

25. August 2009, 02:46:29

Subject: Re: Infant mortality rate: factors matter

Pedro Martínez: Ok well said. And I do see your point. I'll say that the first sentence certainly wasn't necessary to the point of the article.

23. August 2009, 05:37:21