U.S. Newborn Survival Rate Ranks Low

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060509/ap_on_he_me/infant_mortality;_ylt=AqE0Zg7UxHw5faytJxPRKUzVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue May 9, 4:19 AM ET

CHICAGO - America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.

Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.

"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.

The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.

"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.

Note the infant mortalities Afghanistan and Iraq. :grumpy:

It's just a coincidence Bush is president, and the US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Gokul43201]

I doubt it was any lower in Afghanistan before 2003 (I wouldn't attribute their current position to the war there), but I do think it would have been a lot lower in Iraq.

Edit : Even Iraq is not worse off now than before the war started. It is worse now than 1990, but it looks to me like it was the UN sanctions that were responsible for the high mortality rates since.

 

[Pengwuino]

A baby that is born with a terminal disease and dies is counted in this right? Not just a baby that is born healthy and dies soon after?

 

[wasteofo2]

A baby that is born with a terminal disease and dies is counted in this right? Not just a baby that is born healthy and dies soon after?

Would there be any reason that the U.S. might have more babies with terminal diseases?

I hadn't thought of that, but that could be part of the answer. Though in a country as large as the U.S., and decidedly not as socialist as most industrialized nations, it also makes sense that there is greater inequality in the U.S. and less free medical services for the poor, so they would naturally have a higher infant mortality rate than the poor in Europe, whom have far more services provided to them.

 

[Pengwuino]

I wonder if they take into account babies that are aborted because the doctors predict they will be sick when they're born. Obviously this would be a reason US newborn death rates might be higher and you would hope something like this is taken into account if possible.

 

[loseyourname]

I do remember this stat being debunked a long while back last time it was brought up in this forum because of the way the stats were being counted. US infant mortality rates were calculated including infants that were delivered early that would otherwise have died in utero, only to die shortly afterward, whereas many other countries don't even deliver those children to begin with, and so they weren't counted in their infant mortality rates.

Beats me what happened to that thread, though.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why is the AP reporting it then?

 

[loseyourname]

Well, it does mention the very high rates of premature babies being born, especially in the African-American population. Part of the reason for that may be better prenatal care in other countries, which would gel with that debunking but still be a problem.

Then again, remember about eight months back or so when someone posted a report about an ex-marine claiming to have witnessed war crimes committed by US troops that was selling his story? I did a three minute google search to find three lies he told that conflicted with earlier incidents of him being in the newspapers. The reporter or fact checker couldn't have used google? Honestly, I don't have high expectations for the integrity of the average reporter.

 

[russ_watters]

I do remember this stat being debunked a long while back last time it was brought up in this forum because of the way the stats were being counted. US infant mortality rates were calculated including infants that were delivered early that would otherwise have died in utero, only to die shortly afterward, whereas many other countries don't even deliver those children to begin with, and so they weren't counted in their infant mortality rates.

Beats me what happened to that thread, though.

I remember that too. When the stats get so sparse, how they are collected makes a big difference. Plus, when the general stats are that low and that grouped together, what does it really mean to be last? Not a whole lot.

That said, there is always room for improvement - particularly with the stats for minorities.

Why is the AP reporting it then?

Because it sounds like it might be news?

 

[russ_watters]

Then again, remember about eight months back or so when someone posted a report about an ex-marine claiming to have witnessed war crimes committed by US troops that was selling his story? I did a three minute google search to find three lies he told that conflicted with earlier incidents of him being in the newspapers. The reporter or fact checker couldn't have used google? Honestly, I don't have high expectations for the integrity of the average reporter.

Side-note, but I don't consider that a matter of integrity. There certainly are dishonest reporters out there, but most are simply too lazy to check on what they are reporting. What matters above all else is the emotional impact of the story on the reader/watcher.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, the previous topic was probably about US vs Cuba, because that is a common stat thrown around by people who like to say Cuba is a nicer place to live than the US. There are a number of articles explaining the difference:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

We already knew that, but why, exactly...?

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily 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.

I think that must be worded incorrectly, because if 40% of infants died on their first day, that'd be a 400 per 1000 rate. They probably mean 30-40% who die their first year die the first day.

 

[russ_watters]

Also of note: this site has the rates for many countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan) in 1990 and 2001. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/indic_289.html

 

[scott1]

What does Iraq and Afghanstain have to do with this?
Last time I checked the Milltary limit was 17 years old. I don't think we sent any infantry froces...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry" (Why is infantry and infant spelt similer )

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah I don't know! Why does everything have to get compared to Afghanistan and Iraq these days?

"And today we're comparing the # of BBQ's sold throughout the world. In Comparison to the #1 spot of the United States, Canada, France, and Germany scored relatively high at #2, #4, and #5 respectively. Iraq and Afghanistan came in at #28 and #80 respectively".

 

[russ_watters]

What does Iraq and Afghanstain have to do with this?
Last time I checked the Milltary limit was 17 years old. I don't think we sent any infantry froces...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry" (Why is infantry and infant spelt similer )

Astronuc brought it up. It is reasonable to expect that during a time of war (and/or the turmoil afterwards), healthcare will suffer.