i'm going to quote the lynchpin of this argument:
First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as
stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.
now i'm going to point out that there isnt a single doctor in the US who would list any child under 1lb, or 12 inches as a live birth. Those fall well, well, well within the category of non compatible with life, which we qualify as still births in america, even if it has reflexes for the few seconds it 'survives' outside of the womb. We list full anencephalics (children born without any brain beyond the brainstem) as live births (as does all of europe for that matter) and they are garunteed to die within 24 hours in 99% of the cases.... and yet we would never ever consider labeling any of the above categories as a live birth. But we would never consider those two categories as possibly sustainable except in extremely rare cases, and they aren't counted as possible to sustain either.
To be fair, I'm unsure about the 26 week mark. I know it is well below what my biochem doc (a big time OBGYN) said is the earliest you can deliver a child and expect it to survive, but I'm aware that 26 week olds can survive under ideal conditions. Over here, the 24 week mark is considered the viable/non-viable point in the US (Though a 24 weeker it does have a 50% survival rate at that point if induced into a prepared NIC-U, I'm assuming its pointless to try even a few days earlier than that). Long story short here is that the 26 week one may have a point, but i cant find any sign at all that this is the protocol in either france or belgium. Not doubting US news, i'm sure it has its sources, i just know so little about this decision because the sources clearly aren't easily locatable on the internet.
Our birth rate stats are low because... they... are... low. Birth is terribly traumatic for both mother and child. We have high mascarraige/spon abortion rates (which really only speaks to our environment, and just maybe diets, not our healthcare since thats mostly genetic/traumatic), high infant mortality and high maternal mortality. And its partially because of lack of healthcare leading to lack of prenatal and neonatal care causes complications and deaths that could easily be avoided if the patients felt comfortable going to the doctor to receive care as recommended, rather than waiting for big problems to come up (pre and neo) and/or the birth itself.
you cant compensate for things like SIDS, trauma or other spontaneous things. But its the level and frequency of care for those who cant afford the care that drags us down. What does it mean to someone like me, on private insurance? Not much directly, but i'm ashamed nonetheless. It may just be a stat to me, but i know that its a stat because children (and sometimes mothers) are dying that shouldnt be dying because of a cultural climate.
Again, i dont feel like addressing the "how". I just ask that whatever we argue about, we keep in mind that fixing the problem of people refusing to seek care til emergencies (primarily because of the prohibitive cost) is the issue to be addressed. toss in whatever pork (dems) or screaming about inefficiency (reps) you want as long as it provides for those people.
