Interesting article for Right to Lifers

[bimshire]

Posted 5/9/2006 5:22 AM ET
CHICAGO (AP) — America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.

Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-09-infant-mortality_x.htm

 

[Blondy876]

It's a very interesting (and sad) article, but I'm not sure why you titled it for Right to Lifers?

 

[bimshire]

It's a very interesting (and sad) article, but I'm not sure why you titled it for Right to Lifers?

The reason is that so much time and protesting and money and hysteria is spent to save a fetus, yet babies that are actually born don't get the same assistance to keep them "alive."

 

[kirbsam]

why do you think they dont get as much assistance to survive. seems kind of ignorant. i guess you have never experienced the intense emotion, hysteria, and effort to save the life of a new born baby. because if you had a clue what the families go through, you would not make such an ignorant statement. go to a neonatal intensive care unit once and see the effort to save babies. and then lets see if you change your tune. your post is one of the worst i have ever read.

 

[diznygirl]

The reason is that so much time and protesting and money and hysteria is spent to save a fetus, yet babies that are actually born don't get the same assistance to keep them "alive."

This is an ignorant comment.

 

[ChrisnSteph]

why do you think they dont get as much assistance to survive. seems kind of ignorant. i guess you have never experienced the intense emotion, hysteria, and effort to save the life of a new born baby. because if you had a clue what the families go through, you would not make such an ignorant statement. go to a neonatal intensive care unit once and see the effort to save babies. and then lets see if you change your tune. your post is one of the worst i have ever read.

Well said! This article surprises me, because having had two of my children each spend weeks in a NICU, I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job then they did to save my babies lives - which, with a lot of hard work and genetics going against them, they did. I'm sure I speak for many other parents who will also say the same thing.

 

[Caradana]

Did they correct out for prematurity in that study? I have to imagine that they did, but I haven't seen reference to it in any articles. The US is among the only countries in the world that can keep a 26-week fetus alive, or attempt to correct for severe birth defects post-birth, but the reality is that many of these babies die early on, and that skews the statistics. In other words: medical science has become such a good arbiter of life and death that we are probably torpedoing our own death rates, because we can perform near-miracles to keep babies temporarily alive whereas they would've been stillbirths elsewhere.

 

[janette]

Well said! This article surprises me, because having had two of my children each spend weeks in a NICU, I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job then they did to save my babies lives - which, with a lot of hard work and genetics going against them, they did. I'm sure I speak for many other parents who will also say the same thing.

I think the real problems are before they are born. The lack of prenatal care is one of the main reasons many babies are in NICU fighting for their lives. The local county hospital here has a great NICU partly due to the practice from moms who's first visit to a Dr is to give birth.

It also isn't clear in the article how the stats were gathered. Since the US does try to save preemie's now that were once considered not viable how does that effect the stats.

 

[Disney Doll]

Your train of logic makes no sense. You have obviously never spent time in a NICU, where there is a ENORMOUS amount of effort made to save babies. We save babies in the couontry that would die in utero or immediately upon birth in other countries.

Truthfully, I think you're a troll, trying to stir up something by posting an article that has no direct correlation to the inflammatory title of your post.

And that is abhorrent.

 

[mytwotinks]

The reason is that so much time and protesting and money and hysteria is spent to save a fetus, yet babies that are actually born don't get the same assistance to keep them "alive."

How ignorant! I am the mother of a child who would have died w/out the overwhelming "assistance" that she was given. You should really visit a nicu and see just what it means to try to save these babies. These people give a big part of their lives to saving these babies. It is not a job for wimps!

 

[Charade]

There's no correlation between "right to lifers" and the morality rate for newborns. All you're doing is trying to stir the pot. Nice work.

Even if the reason for the higher rate in the US is obscure, "right to lifers" are at least trying to give them a chance.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Your train of logic makes no sense. You have obviously never spent time in a NICU, where there is a ENORMOUS amount of effort made to save babies. We save babies in the couontry that would die in utero or immediately upon birth in other countries.

Truthfully, I think you're a troll, trying to stir up something by posting an article that has no direct correlation to the inflammatory title of your post.

And that is abhorrent.

Agreed.

As you say:
"We save babies in the country that would die in utero or immediately upon birth in other countries."
This is the key to it all and what skews the stats in a HUGE way -- many, many more babies in the USA make it to birth who would otherwise die in other countries. Only those who try to bash the USA use these ignorant and misleading stats.

 

[goofygirl]

The reason is that so much time and protesting and money and hysteria is spent to save a fetus, yet babies that are actually born don't get the same assistance to keep them "alive."

I think you are right on target!

There's been a lot of mention of NICUs here. I wonder how many of those "right to life" protestors actually followed a baby who was "saved" from "murder" and followed that baby's life into the NICU....or the foster home, or the slum, etc. Nah...that would be too much trouble. Its much easier to stand there with a sign outside a Planned Parenthood for a few hours and then drive home to your comfortable suburban neighborhood- nice and far away from the blight where "saved" babies will wind up living.

 

[janette]

Where we fail in the US is in an making prenatal care readily and easy to get. We spend millions on having the greatest and latest NICU but if some of that was spent preventing babies from being so sick upon birth we'd be better for it.

If you read the article the disparity in mortality rates by income in this country is sad and yes although I think the OP is just stirring the pot it is something that should get our attention. It's not just the right to lifers that need to speak out to our government or agencies but all of us.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Where we fail in the US is in an making prenatal care readily and easy to get. We spend millions on having the greatest and latest NICU but if some of that was spent preventing babies from being so sick upon birth we'd be better for it.

If you read the article the disparity in mortality rates by income in this country is sad and yes although I think the OP is just stirring the pot it is something that should get our attention. It's not just the right to lifers that need to speak out to our government or agencies but all of us.

And what's the problem with the parents?? What are we supposed to be -- the world's greatest nanny state.

The lowest income people in this country compare quite favorably to all third world countries. They need to take responsibility -- the mother AND the father.