Skip to comments.Even Fox news falls for the myth of "infant mortality rates"
Posted on 09/09/2009 4:25:41 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life expectancies among developed nations
Everybody else skews their data. It's not a reflection on our system. Here:
"Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby"
Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.
The doctor didn't just come up with that out of thin air, and he certainly didn't say that hoping to make her feel better because that's an egregious thing to say. That's how the doctor is going to report it. This won't be handled as a birth. It'll be handled and reported as a miscarriage.
When the books are wiped in this manner on a mass scale by other nations' systems, of course the US will look bad. And being as it's done at the bottom, it's not claimed as a set in stone policy. Making it harder to track.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The nations with socialist medical systems control everything. Including the books. And the government controls the laws.
Which means they're free to enron the entire deal and make it all look really good.
The complicit media goes right along with them, and sadly, even Fox falls for it.
Note to parents, prospective and otherwise: Seniors aren't the only folks who need to worry
You are absolutely correct. There is no consistency on how this statistic is measured, and nations that do not routinely use, or have available, state of the art neonatal intensive care units report these as essentially non-viable births rather than infant mortality. This is the kind of thing the media is supposed to educate the populace on. But they don't, either because of their bias, their ignorance, or likely a combination of both.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
“we have one of the lowest life expectancies among developed nations”
That has far more to do with genetics, homogeneous
societies, and life style, then with the quality or availability of health care.
Many of the oldest people in the world have come from areas that have little or no health care.
The difference is this:
When a crack whore has an addicted, premature baby, the US hospital will take heroic measures to save the child. If the baby still dies, it counts towards “US Infant Mortality.”
The same baby, elsewhere, would be listed as “born dead” and not counted.
Hey, you got a link on that? thx
When a crack whore has an addicted, premature baby, the US hospital will take heroic measures to save the child. If the baby still dies, it counts towards US Infant Mortality.
The same baby, elsewhere, would be listed as born dead and not counted.
My husband and my mother-in-law quote this canard at me all the time. I pointed out that I sat in a neo-natal intensive care unit in Washington, DC for a 45 days. In all that time with all the beds full, the only non-drug baby in that ward was mine. I have cousins in England - my daughter would not have even been given a bed - they don't have that many to begin with.
By the way, she is healthy, happy, beautiful, a mom and a Nurse Practitioner that practices in the mental health field. She is one very capable and determined young lady. Her williness and ability to help others, her big open heart would have all been lost to the world if she had been born in another country.
By golly, you're right about that! I can't believe I never ever thought about that when it comes to debating this issue with my very few pro govt. healthcare pals! Wow. Now I feel more stupid than usual for missing the obvious! It'll be an excellent seed of doubt to use.
Foreign countries count babies DOA in manners we in America find repugnant. Recently a premature baby was born in Britian - 2 days under the mandatory 22 months before lifesaving treatment is allowed. The baby was given to the mother and allowed to die. In British infant mortality statistics; this baby was DOA.
Whereas in America any baby born with a hearbeat and/or breathing is counted as a live birth; in foreign countries, including Canada, the baby must pass a number of steps before it is counted as a “live birth” instead of DOA (dead on arrival).
Read my post 12. When you don’t count babies with a heartbeat and/or breathing as live births in the first place as we do in the United States, it completely distorts longetivity measures.
Foreign countries, including Canada, Britian, France, etc. don’t count a baby as a live birth unless it passes a number of steps that are NOT even considered in the United States. If it has a heart beat or breaths it is a LIVE BIRTH in the United States while overseas and in Canada such a baby could still be counted as a still birth if it dies within hours or even days of complications.
Fact: ANY country in the world stating they have lower infant mortality rates than the United States doesn’t count all babies born ALIVE AS BEING BORN ALIVE.
The US is at the bottom several lists for things like education and health care because of skewed statistics. We have our faults, but these statistics are not comparing apples and apples. Or even apples to other fruit...
Asian mothers in the US with no prenatal care have a considerably lower death rate among their babies than black women with the best prenatal care.
—————Wow. Now I feel more stupid than usual for missing the obvious!-——————
You shouldn’t. Most of this stuff is really is obvious, as you’ve said. But we have a huge liberal media which constantly puts out propaganda and nudges us in directions we don’t want to go. By having multiple outlets all saying the same thing, it clouds the mind making it harder to get it right.
The ‘infant mortality rates’ talking point isn’t the only myth floating out there.(I don’t know if you’ve already come across this or already know this, but even still, I’d like it referenced in this thread as I also like being thorough) WHO statistics are also highly flawed. Check out post 14 of the following thread for an excellent explanation of why.
Upon thinking about this, I’ve come to realize just how disgusting this really is. It becomes in everybody’s “best interests”.
It’s in the “best interests” at all levels:
It’s in the doctor’s best interests. He relies heavily on getting that next government paycheck. If he has too many negatives on his sheet, that can’t be good.
It’s in the hospital’s best interests. Same as above.
It’s in NHS’s best interests. They are already facing heat from their long wait times, super bugs, and a handful of other reasons.
It’s in the politician’s best interests. Same as above.
Which is sad, because it puts everybody against saving life at all levels. Just to save a buck and make themselves look good.
And because at all levels it’s in everybody’s “best interests” to skew the numbers in this fashion, there’s no need to make it a written rule. Everybody just knows. Wink. Nod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.