Why do the critics of the united states health care always list infant mortality statistics?

I don't know if that follows, but what I do know is that infant mortality statistics are quite misleading and I'll let a DOCTOR explain the facts of the matter:

"Take infant mortality statistics. The officially reported U.S. infant mortality rate has been indisputably high compared with similarly industrialized countries since at least the 1920s.

That fact has led to a widely accepted conclusion among public health people in the U.S. that these rates are "caused" by poorly distributed health care resources and can be "solved" by adopting a socialized government-paid system of health care.

We heartily disagree.

Let's look at the numbers.

While comparing statistics among countries can be tricky, in the case of infant mortality figures, the comparisons are downright treacherous. For starters, different countries count differently.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.

Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 cm. as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting fellow, Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the US, 4.8 and 7.2 respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.

Other countries, such as Italy, use different definitions in various parts of their own country. Eberstadt observes that "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first twenty-four hours after birth. In Australia, Canada, and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day...." In contrast "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."

A UNICEF press release noted, "Under the Soviet era definition ... infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams or measuring less than 35 centimeters are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] CIS countries." The release also points out, "The communist system stressed the need to keep infant mortality low, and hospitals and medical staff faced penalties if they reported increases in infant deaths. As a result, they sometimes reported the deaths of babies in their care as miscarriages or stillbirths."

Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, economist John Goodman and others in their 2004 book "Lives at Risk" conclude, "Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low-birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]." Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same.

American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very low birth weight babies weighing less than 3 pounds almost always died. Now, some of these babies survive with the help of breathing assistance and other recent inventions. While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low birth weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to the WHO. And these deaths count as infant deaths even though most would have been counted as stillbirths if they hadn't received a gift of life, however transitory. Ironically, American doctors' ability to save babies' lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced medical treatment.

Because of varying standards, international comparisons of infant mortality rates are improperly used to create myths about how the United States should allocate local or national resources. If we want to lower our infant mortality rate so it compares better with that of other countries, maybe we should bring our measuring into line with theirs to better determine the actual extent of the so-called "problem."

Enhancing the survival and well-being of our babies is vital and important. More government interference in medicine will only subject them to the unhealthy, malarious swamps of socialism — infant mortality myths notwithstanding.

Editor's Note: Robert J. Cihak wrote this week's column"

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0305/medicine.men...

You bring up a good point in a possible problem with the infant mortality rate. However, I think the infant mortality rate is easier to measure than your proposed "successful pregnancy rate". That's because an infant is a separate patient, with a birth certificate and a chance to receive quality of care.

Miscarriages are tougher to measure...it also leads to legally sticky questions such as, when does the fetus quicken and get "counted" in the statistic? At conception? (I am not arguing for a certain point, just highlighting the issue.) It's a can of worms what with the ongoing abortion issue.

That said, I think you make a good point about the statistic.

Please state your sources for our miscarriage rate being lower than everywhere else. In this country and in many others a lot of women miscarry who are not "counted" in this particular study because the women don't realize it was a miscarriage. Or they go to the hospital and are told their pregnancy test is negative - to go home and relax - when in actuallity a few hours before they were pregnant.

Infant mortality has always been the standard for how well a health system is working if you come up with a better one I would be willing to listen to it. But mostly the care of the youngest and most vulnerable of us is the standard we use.

Why do the conservatives feel the United States have the fine wellbeing care process on this planet? I wager for the identical cause the left thinks each country and tradition on Earth is larger then the U.S. Conservatives feel the whole lot is best approximately America and the left believes not anything is best approximately America. We'll all cross a long way on this country with this sort of perspective.

I would like to see this table. I performed numerous searches on WHO's website but could not find the data you refer to.

Also I would like to point out that child mortality (ie children dying before the age of 5) is usually used, along with other data such as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy.

If you have data to refute this, please present it, not just refer to it.