US Among Worst in World for Infant Death

[FreeStateDemocrat]

Source: NYT/AP


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 10, 2007
Filed at 7:15 p.m. ET

The rate at which infants die in the United States has dropped substantially over the past half-century, but broad disparities remain among racial groups, and the country stacks up poorly next to other industrialized nations.

In 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available, roughly seven babies died for every 1,000 live births before reaching their first birthday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. That was down from about 26 in 1960.

Babies born to black mothers died at two and a half times the rate of those born to white mothers, according to the CDC figures.

The United States ranks near the bottom for infant survival rates among modernized nations. A Save the Children report last year placed the United States ahead of only Latvia, and tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

The same report noted the United States had more neonatologists and newborn intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom -- but still had a higher rate of infant mortality than any of those nations.

Doctors and analysts blame broad disparities in access to health care among racial and income groups in the United States.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Saving-the-Smallest-US-Picture.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

---

Need to follow the idiot's advice, just go to the emergency room and that will solve every healthcare deficiency in our country.

[Warpy]

1. Right, just skip all that expensive prenatal care

I mean, childbirth is a natural thing, right? There are no risks associated with it, right? Only an evil medical establishment has turned it into an illness, right?

So what if there is a placenta previa that could have been diagnosed months ago that is now causing mother and baby to bleed to death? So what if the mom comes into the ER in full eclampsia with burned out kidneys and a baby who is suffering extreme renal toxicity? Childbirth is safe and natural, just go to a corner of the field, drop the kid, and return to work, right?

That an advanced country that boasts of great wealth should have such a dismal statistic combined with an equally poor maternal death statistic is appalling, cruel, and completely unacceptable.

No evil in this country makes me angrier than what conservatives in both parties have allowed to happen to our healthcare system. I speak as one who worked within that system for 25 years and as someone who is ineligible for insurance in this country due to illness.

Angry doesn't begin to cover what I feel.

[Hissyspit]

2. We're #1! We're #1!

[pattmarty]

4. I believe in prisons also we're #1.....

[davekriss]

7. Related...

...we're number 1 in the rate by which we imprison our citizens. We imprison more than Saudi Arabia, more than Iran, more than China, more than North Korea. But, hey, we live in a great country. Afterall we bottom-feed with Latvia in terms of infant mortality and WHO ranks us 37th in the world for overall healthcare. Gotta' luv this Land of the Free !11!1!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. If they had more free midwife care and natural birth and breast feeding

instead there are cesarians, bottle feeding and limited health insurance.

[JeanGrey]

11. They WON'T breast feed! I just had the daughter of a friend who

had a eight pound healthy baby boy, and he shuckled like a champ from minute one. I already knew she wasn't going to nurse him because all she did was complain about how it "made her nipples sore". Tried to tell her it would pass in a day or so and how lucky she was to have such a healthy baby who latched on so easily.

By the next day he was on the bottle. (sigh) and now she's complaining that he doesn't eat "as much as she would like". Gee I can't imagine why!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. I think many parents have no clue

[JeanGrey]

21. They are just selfish. That is all it boils down to.

[LeftishBrit]

39. That is very judgemental

There are some mothers who truly *cannot* breastfeed - or who shouldn't for medical reasons (e.g. those with infections which they could pass on to the baby). Others who could, if they got the right instruction, but never do get it. And some who manage without difficulty.

Classifying all non-breast-feeding mothers as 'just selfish' is unfair.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. That's been true of some mothers in every generation

since bottle feeding became "the norm." It's sad because many just don't give breastfeeding a fair shot -- or someone else convinces them it won't work, is too difficult, inconvenient, painful, etc. Perhaps many, like the young mother you describe, really just don't want to breastfeed and are looking for an excuse to quit. I'd say they'd be better off not even trying except that the benefits of colostrum are well-known, which makes it worth every mother trying for a few days at least, for the sake of the baby's health.

Maybe more people need to know that babies who are breast-fed exclusively (no cereal, fruit, formula, etc.) don't have bad-smelling bowel movements. Since babies can be breast-fed exclusively for six or seven months, that's a lot of smelly diapers nursing mothers are spared!

[JeanGrey]

22. I don't think it would matter. She kept saying she didn't think

"it would work" before the baby came. Then to her surprise when he latched on like a champ she had to find another excuse. So sad.

[Arugula Latte]

44. My first was breastfed exclusively for five months ... but

I had to introduce cereal, bananas, etc., in addition to nursing because he was a BIG kid and I just couldn't fill him up. He'd nurse and nurse and still be hungry.

He did continue to breastfeed until he was two.

[Ilsa]

35. Oh geez. Another obese kid on the way. Force-feeding a baby

a specified amount of formula instead of letting the baby have a say in when he is full increases the risk for obese children.

More training in breastfeeding is needed, such as how the soreness is due to hormones when a baby has a great latch.

[LeftishBrit]

40. All these things are relevant...

but I suspect that prenatal care is the most important factor. IIRC, the infant mortality rate in France reduced dramatically when systematic prenatal care was introduced. I suppose the health insurance issue is related to that.

[loser_user]

5. Is the fact some doctors

that try to save what most other countries call still births a factor as well?

[geek_sabre]

42. shhhhh...

[Maine-ah]

6. in the past year there have been at least four in my area

that I have read obits for. :cry:

[donsu]

8. plus american babies that do survive are full of toxins, hormones, etc.

women should really hate the neo cons for ignoring climate change, for now it is too late.

for it is women who bare and care for the damaged babies.

[ohio2007]

10. ?

gotta link ?

this is just getting so strange

[ohio2007]

9. Why are the "modernized nations " only used? The majority of the worlds population

is in third world "survival of the fittest" nations.

I'm glad my kids were born in the US as opposed to Sudan,Myanmar or ...about 100 other nations of the world.

Actually the article reveals the US is at the top of the children mortality survival cain when all things are considered.

skew a story ...get paid by the NYTimes....

[JeanGrey]

12. That headline is such a lie.

[Wednesdays]

14. Uh, so you and Ohio

would rather we be compared to countries like Uganda and Bangladesh. :eyes:

[JeanGrey]

20. No, I would prefer truth in the media.

People read this and think the U.S. is the worst in the world. Hardly the truth.

[redqueen]

27. Only if they don't know the meaning of the word "Among". (nt)

[JeanGrey]

31. You'd be surprised.

[redqueen]

33. Very few don't know the meaning,

but many are intellectually lazy about details.

[JeanGrey]

43. I already had someone who saw this report and thought

it meant the U.S. was worse than say, Africa. As I said, you'd be surprised.

[lovuian]

15. US says Abortion is wrong but hell No to children insurance

again corrupted Word and actions speak louder

Our great healthcare which is an embarassment

[Psephos]

16. Wake up. In the US, fetuses that would not be viable elsewhere are put in neonate ICUs

Which skews the stats. Fetuses ("premies") that aren't viable elsewhere never show up in the infant stats.

Compare apples to apples and the comparative rates of infant mortality look considerably different.

[redqueen]

25. Are you claiming that other countries (Aus, UK, etc.)

don't have NICUs?

Seriously?

Source, please.

[Psephos]

32. No, I'm not claiming that

Speaks volumes that you would think so.

Here, this took me nine seconds on Google. Maybe you could try that next time.

http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm

My point was that a stupid news story written by a journo who wouldn't know a valid statistical analysis if it bit off his testicles *might* not be telling the *whole fucking story*.

Especially if it doesn't fit the AmericaSuX (TM) narrative.

[redqueen]

34. Are you joking?

That's a CDC website that says nothing about how it's measured in the UK or Australia or any other place that you left out of your little fit there.

Did you have a point other than to whine about how mean and unfair and insulting the article is to America?

[Psephos]

37. Ahh, a TrueBeliever

Now I understand.

I don't engage in religious discussions. Next.

[redqueen]

38. So when you have a hard time backing up your claims, you resort to nonsense?

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

48. Does the USA have an earlier viability criterion than other places?

It's 24 weeks in the UK - is it earlier in the USA?

[hack89]

17. Poor reporting here.

comparing infant survival rates is hard for many reasons, one being that there is not a universal standard. American has one of the more stringent
standards.

Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. The United States counts an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but some other countries differ in these practices. For example, in Germany and Austria, fetal weight must reach one pound to be counted as a live birth, while in some other countries, including Switzerland, the baby must be at least 12 inches long. Both Belgium and France report babies as born lifeless if they are less than 26 weeks' gestation.

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics

[redqueen]

26. Nothing about the UK?

So the comparison to the UK is valid, then?

So only Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Austria should show that disparity then, correct?

[hack89]

28. You are being simplistic

my post was not supposed to represent an exhaustive study of infant death rates. It was simply to show that 5 minutes on Google is enough to realize the situation is more complicated and nuanced then the OP would have one believe.

Now many it will accept the OP on face value simply because it reinforces their currently held beliefs. Others will take the time (if they care) to dig a little deeper for themselves before they form an opinion.

[redqueen]

29. No, I'm trying to find out how bad the article really is.

Looks like many are willing to assume it's BS based on scant research.

Hm.

[hack89]

30. Sorry I misunderstood your post. nt

[midlife_mo_Jo]

47. Yes, I've read this before, as well

I also read somewhere that in some countries if the baby dies within the first 24 hours or so, it's not counted in the "infant mortality" statistics. In that case, we're comparing apples to oranges.

[fujiyama]

19. The headline is poorly worded and misleading

Still, it's about damn time for people to realize that when it comes to healthcare in general, the US is really lacking in many aspects. Considering the poor access to it and the number of uninsured, these numbers should not be surprising.

Also, the racial disparities should be especially alarming.

[mainegreen]

23. What a steaming pile of horse shit. n/t

[redqueen]

24. Butbutbut... we've got the best health care IN THE WORLD!

:crazy:

[rAVES]

36. OMG! THAT MEANS LESS SOLDIERS IN THE FUTURE!!!1

That should get those warmongering dogs attention... fucking animals...

[slackmaster]

41. It would be helpful if the article included more actual rates rather than vague comparisons

If the "modernized" nations all have rates clustered together around a very low value, it may not really mean much that the US infant mortality rate is higher than that of Canada, the UK, or some other country.

[qwlauren35]

45. Your title is HIGHLY inaccurate.

Yes, some racial groups in the US have very high infant death rates, others are very low.

However, I'm not sure whether the other "1st world" countries make similar distinctions among their minority groups, especially those who aren't so highly regarded.

Aboriginies in Australia? Gypsies in Europe?

We definitely need to address these issues, but it should not be because we don't compare favorably to other countries. That's a pretty embarrassing motivator.

[redqueen]

46. It's not FSD"s title... it's the title of the article. (nt)

[Beerboy]

49. I think the general up-shot here is that

the U.S. would like the scrutiny taken off it's domestic infanticide, and outsource it!:patriot: