Posted on 10/24/2010 6:01:20 AM PDT by gusopol3
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at overpopulation.com ...
"In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old."-- I am assuming this means that "of those infants contrbuting to the gross infant mortality count, 30-40 % die on their birthday, which is the highest in the world."
I understand these countries having lower birth mortality rates also define the rate differently.
That’s what I understand as well.This is such a useful tool for the leftists and socialized medicine advocates that they don’t want to allow the truth to leak out. That’s why I’m in a rage over an American Thinker article advancing it.
There is less crack in Cuba?
The media asks this question every day. /s
I guess the omelet is right next to all the new green jobs.
“The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that” Cuba lies about their stats.
Abortion may have something to do with it. But, the primary reason is the way Cuba and most European countries “count” live births. In the U.S., extremely early and low birth weight preemies are counted as live births because our advanced technology and superior medicine facilities have the capability to keep many of these babies alive. However, their mortality rate is still very high.
In Cuba and other countries, these preemies are simply not counted as “live births” - they are counted as fetal deaths. They either do not have the capability to keep them alive, or they choose not to spend their rationed health care dollars on them because the cost/benefit stats do not add up.
The stats comparing the “health” of nations are used endlessly by leftists to trash the U.S. system of medicine. But, they are not apples for apples and anyone who has taken an introductory stats class can easily recognize that. You don’t even need a class - it’s pure common sense. Too bad more people don’t have any. Seriously, who could EVER believe Cuba has a better system of prenatal care and neonatal intensive care than we do?
That’s right. The comments on infant mortality on the CDC website confirm that the academic/ governmental medical community was going to hitch this horse to the cart no matter how lame it was.
“Lower infant mortality” is a fake stat. Every country calculates it different. I don’t think Cuba even counts it for the first day or two.
Not comparable
I suspect that another factor is the American prenatal care given during at-risk preganancies that prevents many miscarriages that otherwise would have occurred naturally.
A few years ago there was a pregnant woman in Canada who was about to give birth to 5 or 6 babies. With so many babies they were going to be quite small and I believe they needed to induce labor early for the health of the mother.
There were not enough available premature baby units IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF CANADA to take care of these babies, and the mother was taken to a small city in Montana where these units were available.
I remember the story well because we were visiting Canada at the time and it was a big story there.
What? They have a free press there? or was the reporter fired immediately?
Just a statistical game.
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.