"The United States has the second highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world--tied with Malta and Slovakia."

"Today, Slate dissects the statistic and finds that the problem isn't too little money, it's too much. Infant mortality figures in the United States reflects a large number of premature births, and "modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread." This argument...has gotten a lot of play, especially from a peeved James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal."
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119199.html

Quote :

"The United States . . . has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality--the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation. How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams [14 ounces] and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive--and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent--that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/000019.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006153

3/19/2007 1:45:09 PM

Quote :

"In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."

Do any of the articles provide a revised US infant mortality rate along those lines?

3/19/2007 1:48:28 PM

the preservation and propagation of deficient genes doesn't help either.

3/19/2007 1:50:22 PM

To the best of my knowledge, there are no statistics to back up what these people are saying. Could anyone here on TWW have alternative sources to back up what is being claimed in these articles? They do not make reference to where their statistics are coming from, although I am certain such statistics are collected.

"It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

This does not diminish in any way Cuba's progress on infant mortality, which is one of the few long term improvements that the Cuban state has made, but infant mortality statistics that are that close to one another are often extremely difficult to compare cross-culturally."

3/19/2007 1:55:37 PM

Another difference that would skew the statistics is the (I'd assume) larger number of mothers who attempt to give birth at a late age in the USA verses other countries. Surely those pregnancies are statistically less successful and lead to a greater number of deaths per infant. Just a hunch, I don't have any stats to back it up.

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2007 3:53:50 PM

Are abortions at all factored in?

3/19/2007 4:00:52 PM

^We don't abort infants. So, no, they are not factored in anybody's infant mortality rate.

3/19/2007 4:19:53 PM

"A friend of mine years 20 years ago told me her doctor had told her she would have great difficulty carrying a child to term due to the three abortions she had in the past."

3/19/2007 4:51:32 PM

Okay, I get it.

3/19/2007 4:58:59 PM

If you are looking for statistics I would suggest checking out some Neonatology journals.

3/19/2007 6:49:52 PM