• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maternal mortality: An American crisis

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,513
Reaction score
19,312
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CBS News

Maternal mortality: An American crisis
​

Can it be true that women giving birth in America are more at rick than women in dozens of other countries? Erin Moriarty has the stories behind the statistics:

Fearless is how Charles Johnson describes his wife, Kira. "We're talking about a woman that was a marathon runner, that raced cars, that was a skydiver," he said.

It never occurred to him that the greatest danger Kira would face would be going to one of the best hospitals in California to have a baby, their second son, Langston: "For us, we were really and truly expecting this experience the second time around to be a walk in the park."

Kira's doctors recommended she have a C-section because she'd had one before. The first sign of a problem came in the late afternoon of April 12, 2016, shortly after Kira gave birth. "I was sitting by Kira's bedside and I began to notice the catheter turn pink with blood," Johnson said.

A doctor ordered a CT scan. Johnson says he didn't worry at first. "Something's not quite right and I was aware of that, but we've got a plan. And she's in what I thought were great hands."

COMMENT:-

Where are the protest marches? Why aren't the "Right To Life" people up in arms about this? Why aren't the "Freedom to Choose" people up in arms about this?
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Maternal mortality: An American crisis
​

Can it be true that women giving birth in America are more at rick than women in dozens of other countries? Erin Moriarty has the stories behind the statistics:

Fearless is how Charles Johnson describes his wife, Kira. "We're talking about a woman that was a marathon runner, that raced cars, that was a skydiver," he said.

It never occurred to him that the greatest danger Kira would face would be going to one of the best hospitals in California to have a baby, their second son, Langston: "For us, we were really and truly expecting this experience the second time around to be a walk in the park."

Kira's doctors recommended she have a C-section because she'd had one before. The first sign of a problem came in the late afternoon of April 12, 2016, shortly after Kira gave birth. "I was sitting by Kira's bedside and I began to notice the catheter turn pink with blood," Johnson said.

A doctor ordered a CT scan. Johnson says he didn't worry at first. "Something's not quite right and I was aware of that, but we've got a plan. And she's in what I thought were great hands."

COMMENT:-

Where are the protest marches? Why aren't the "Right To Life" people up in arms about this? Why aren't the "Freedom to Choose" people up in arms about this?
​
Click to expand...
139735-140263.jpg

Red:
Well, The U.S. experiences 14 material deaths/100,000 live births, and there are 45 countries that have fewer than 14 maternal deaths per 100K live births.
  • Lithuania 10
  • Luxembourg 10
  • Portugal 10
  • Singapore 10
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina 11
  • Bulgaria 11
  • Korea, South 11
  • New Zealand 11
  • Kazakhstan 12
  • Saudi Arabia 12
  • Qatar 13
  • Finland 3
  • Greece 3
  • Iceland 3
  • Poland 3
  • Austria 4
  • Belarus 4
  • Czechia 4
  • Italy 4
  • Kuwait 4
  • Sweden 4
  • Israel 5
  • Japan 5
  • Norway 5
  • Spain 5
  • Switzerland 5
  • Australia 6
  • Denmark 6
  • Germany 6
  • Slovakia 6
  • United Arab Emirates 6
  • Belgium 7
  • Canada 7
  • Cyprus 7
  • Montenegro 7
  • Netherlands 7
  • Croatia 8
  • France 8
  • Ireland 8
  • Macedonia 8
  • Estonia 9
  • Libya 9
  • Malta 9
  • Slovenia 9
  • United Kingdom 9
So, yes, there are about three dozen nations that are ostensibly "better" places to give birth.


Blue:
There are precious few (if any) protest marches about the matter because, and rightly IMO, because regardless of how many deaths per 100K live births there be in the U.S., it's a "non-issue" as goes there being the need to alter policy to attenuate the maternal death rate. The rate we observe is 0.014%. Sorry, but ain't nobody gonna spend their time marching up and down and carrying on about anything that happens that infrequently, most especially when that, on a total population level corresponds to an insanely infinitesimal rate, one that most calculators and spreadsheets present by default in scientific notation because the number is too small to depict cardinally.
 
Xelor said:
The rate we observe is 0.014%. Sorry, but ain't nobody gonna spend their time marching up and down and carrying on about anything that happens that infrequently, most especially when that, on a total population level corresponds to an insanely infinitesimal rate, one that most calculators and spreadsheets present by default in scientific notation because the number is too small to depict cardinally.
Click to expand...

Would you like to produce the rate for "Blacks killed by police" or "Mass shootings" in the US?

Besides, shouldn't the country with the best health care system in the world have an even lower material deaths/100,000 live births rate than that bunch of "socialist" (and many of them aren't even "Republics" [hell, some of them aren't even "Christian"]) "S***holes" you listed?

PS - Did you notice that the US rate for material deaths/100,000 live births was increasing?
 
Must be a preferred subject on this board ... breaking news and all ...

7/26/18 - DP - Thread: US Worst Place to Give Birth in Developed World
7/27/18 - DP - Thread: Thread: U.S. Is “Most Dangerous” Place in Developed World to Give Birth


... and a repeating subject every year by the media (only checked the last few years, and only randomly picked some media) ...

May 2014 - WP - Maternal deaths in childbirth rise in the U.S.
December 2015 - CNN - Why is the maternal mortality rate going up in the United States?
September 2016 - NYT - Maternal Mortality Rate in U.S. Rises, Defying Global Trend, Study Finds
May 2017 - NPR - U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World
February 2018 - Mother Jones - It’s Awful How Many American Women Die Giving Birth
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Would you like to produce the rate for "Blacks killed by police" or "Mass shootings" in the US?

Besides, shouldn't the country with the best health care system in the world have an even lower material deaths/100,000 live births rate than that bunch of "socialist" (and many of them aren't even "Republics" [hell, some of them aren't even "Christian"]) "S***holes" you listed?

PS - Did you notice that the US rate for material deaths/100,000 live births was increasing?
Click to expand...

Red:
I don't have a problem with providing the ratio re: "blacks killed by police;" however:
As for a mass shootings ratio, well, there's nothing comparable about endogenous mass shooting rates and maternal mortality rates. There isn't because, unlike giving birth or shooting (misusing force) suspects, there is no "right" behavior outcome associated with the behavior of a person performing a mass shooting.


Blue:
Be that as it may, the U.S. doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world, not by anyone's measure.
While one may quibble over which country's healthcare system is the best in world, what's not debatable is that the U.S.' system isn't it.


Pink:
No, I didn't notice that. When it gets to or approaches a material level, let me know.
 
Barnacle said:
Must be a preferred subject on this board ... breaking news and all ...

7/26/18 - DP - Thread: US Worst Place to Give Birth in Developed World
7/27/18 - DP - Thread: Thread: U.S. Is “Most Dangerous” Place in Developed World to Give Birth


... and a repeating subject every year by the media (only checked the last few years, and only randomly picked some media) ...

May 2014 - WP - Maternal deaths in childbirth rise in the U.S.
December 2015 - CNN - Why is the maternal mortality rate going up in the United States?
September 2016 - NYT - Maternal Mortality Rate in U.S. Rises, Defying Global Trend, Study Finds
May 2017 - NPR - U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World
February 2018 - Mother Jones - It’s Awful How Many American Women Die Giving Birth
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly isn't something to be proud of - is it?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
I don't have a problem with providing the ratio re: "blacks killed by police;" however:
Click to expand...

There are approximately 37,144,530 non-Hispanic blacks in the United States of America.

223 non-Hispanic blacks were shot by the police in 2017.

That means that there were around 0.600/100,000 killed by police.

You might notice that 14/100,000 is about 23.25 times GREATER than 0.6.

Xelor said:
Be that as it may, the U.S. doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world, not by anyone's measure.
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.

Xelor said:
While one may quibble over which country's healthcare system is the best in world, what's not debatable is that the U.S.' system isn't it.
Click to expand...

Again, obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.

Xelor said:
No, I didn't notice that. When it gets to or approaches a material level, let me know.
Click to expand...

It tends to be rather "material" for those who die.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
There are approximately 37,144,530 non-Hispanic blacks in the United States of America.

223 non-Hispanic blacks were shot by the police in 2017.

That means that there were around 0.600/100,000 killed by police.

You might notice that 14/100,000 is about 23.25 times GREATER than 0.6.



Obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.



Again, obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.



It tends to be rather "material" for those who die.
Click to expand...

Red:
Nice try, but that analysis is unacceptable:
  • You've used the wrong denominator in your calculation. The rate of 14/100K is calculated with a denominator that represents the number of women who actually went into labor, i.e., women who attempted to give birth. The 14/100K figure wouldn't be germane were it to include all women, or even all pregnant women.
    • 14 women who were/are giving birth out of every 100K women who were/are giving birth died from/during childbirth
  • The relevant denominator, if one is going to compare the ratios of the two phenomena -- maternal childbirth deaths and police shooting deaths of blacks -- the the denominator for the latter event must be the number of blacks who are suspects in the first place.
    • # of blacks who were/are suspects ÷ # of black suspects whom cops attempted to apprehend

Other:
Why are you trying to find some sort of relativist basis for making your point? Why can you not address the matter on its own merits/demerits? I responded to your OP remarks by asserting that the rate -- 0.014% -- at which maternal deaths from/during childbirth is immaterial, in its own right, for galvanizing public racor. If you want to make the case that such a rate is material, by all means do so, but why try making your case for materiality by comparing the rate to the rate of some other misfortune, to say nothing of doing so using an event that isn't qualitatively similar in that there's no general and inherent presumption that "everything will, without regard to race, go smoothly" during cops' apprehensions of suspect? (That's a rhetorical question.) (FWIW, there is a way to do address the matter on its own merits and without invoking relativism, but I'm not going to present that approach to you. That's your argument to make, plus it's not the one I've refuted.)



Aside (Off Topic):
As for the "non-Hispanic" black trait you noted, I don't see why that is remotely germane. What cop can tell during the pursuit of a suspect whether the suspect is a non-Hispanic black person or a Hispanic black person? That distinction is relevant for some administrative purpose, but in the real world of policing if one looks like a black person, at that moment in time and in the cop's mind, one is a black person. The following photos illustrate my point.


Some Hispanic Black Americans​
​
​
635904774744452258-1653938499_Afro-Hispanic-Americans.jpg



​
​
JRG_soccerbeach.jpg
​



Non-Hispanic Black Americans
​
bhm_365x285.jpg


black-family-african-americans-in-2015.jpg


​
​

Black folks, as we construe them/the term in the U.S., look like all sorts of people, save that they have some tone of brown skin. Some black folks look for all the world just like white folks but for having some tone of brown skin, and some blacks even have fair skin that's effectively indistinguishable from white folks' skin tone.​
 
Are the stats uniform stats? Or is a maternal death calculated differently per country?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Nice try, but that analysis is unacceptable:
Click to expand...

The number of "Blacks" is the number of "Blacks".

The number of "Blacks" killed is the number of "Blacks" killed.

You may not "accept" those numbers, but they are the numbers that the US government uses.

PS - "Non-Hispanic Black" is the category that the US government uses. That you might not like it is something that you should take up with the US government and not me. Maybe you'd prefer some sort of categorization based on Pantone number.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Are the stats uniform stats? Or is a maternal death calculated differently per country?
Click to expand...

I believe that there are pretty widely accepted common, medically accepted, definitions for "pregnant" and "dead". Do you know of more than one, medically accepted, definition for the terms?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The number of "Blacks" is the number of "Blacks".

The number of "Blacks" killed is the number of "Blacks" killed.

You may not "accept" those numbers, but they are the numbers that the US government uses.

PS - "Non-Hispanic Black" is the category that the US government uses. That you might not like it is something that you should take up with the US government and not me. Maybe you'd prefer some sort of categorization based on Pantone number.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no more to say inasmuch as you don't realize the inaptness of the denominator you proposed.
 
Off Topic:
TU Curmudgeon said:
...Shouldn't the country with the best health care system in the world have an even lower material deaths/100,000 live births rate than that bunch of "socialist" (and many of them aren't even "Republics" [hell, some of them aren't even "Christian"]) "S***holes" you listed?
Click to expand...

Red:
The countries I listed and noted as having fewer than 14 maternal deaths per 100,000 births are:
Xelor said:
  • Lithuania 10
  • Luxembourg 10
  • Portugal 10
  • Singapore 10
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina 11
  • Bulgaria 11
  • Korea, South 11
  • New Zealand 11
  • Kazakhstan 12
  • Saudi Arabia 12
  • Qatar 13
  • Finland 3
  • Greece 3
  • Iceland 3
  • Poland 3
  • Austria 4
  • Belarus 4
  • Czechia 4
  • Italy 4
  • Kuwait 4
  • Sweden 4
  • Israel 5
  • Japan 5
  • Norway 5
  • Spain 5
  • Switzerland 5
  • Australia 6
  • Denmark 6
  • Germany 6
  • Slovakia 6
  • United Arab Emirates 6
  • Belgium 7
  • Canada 7
  • Cyprus 7
  • Montenegro 7
  • Netherlands 7
  • Croatia 8
  • France 8
  • Ireland 8
  • Macedonia 8
  • Estonia 9
  • Libya 9
  • Malta 9
  • Slovenia 9
  • United Kingdom 9
Click to expand...

The emboldened countries are anything but "****holes." Indeed several of them are among the best places to live on the planet.

As with the matter of maternal deaths per 100K, the fact of the matter is that nearly all emboldened nations are OECD states, which given the criteria for being an OECD member state, necessarily makes them be not ****hole nations.​

Blue:
Irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of the "****hole" nations on the planet are republics, as are most of the "non-****hole" ones. Being a republic or not being one has no bearing on whether the nation is or isn't a "****hole," socialist, or anything else. Being a republic merely makes a nation have a body wherein some quantity of ostensibly elected or appointed representatives formally hold governmental policy-making authority for the country, as opposed to that authority residing with the whole of the citizenry or with an absolute monarch/dictator.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I believe that there are pretty widely accepted common, medically accepted, definitions for "pregnant" and "dead". Do you know of more than one, medically accepted, definition for the terms?
Click to expand...

A few years ago there was a story about how lousy the USA was doing with regards to live births. For example, Cuba, the stats showed, did better. The conclusion was that it was better to be born in Cuba than the USA. It was the same sort of story with respect European countries-- they basically did better.

The problem was in how it was calculated. In the USA a baby is a live birth if he or she takes one breath. If the kid dies, its considered a live birth.
However different countries had different standards. In Cuba it was 12 hours, other countries 6 hours ect ect. That tended to skewer the stats.
Which goes back to my question as to the source of the stats regarding maternal deaths.
 
Xelor said:
Off Topic:


Red:
The countries I listed and noted as having fewer than 14 maternal deaths per 100,000 births are:​
Click to expand...


Did you happen to notice that at least 19 of those countries are HEREDITARY MONARCHIES!!!!

I mean how could a Hereditary Monarchy possibly have better health care that a (democratic) Republic like the United States of America???

You, obviously, aren't reading enough FOX News, Breitbart and/or InfoWars.

According to Mr. Trump EVERY other country is a "S***hole Country" (except Israel [and, {possibly} Russia, the DPRK, and {maybe coming soon} Iran]).

All of those other so-called "statistics" that you "cite" are meaningless because they don't put the United States of America as "Number 1" on their lists and everyone knows that the USA is "Number 1" in everything.

Right?

[Please check the calibration on your sarcasm detector before responding.]

PS - Actually the only "requirement" for a country to be a "Republic" is that it NOT have a hereditary leadership. A country that has never had an election but has always had its new leadership "shoot its way into power" is STILL a "Republic". If a country has a hereditary "Head of State" then it cannot qualify as a "Republic" regardless of whether the actual government of the country is in the hands of elected representatives of the people.
[*]World Happiness Report 2018
[*]The top 10 best countries to raise children in 2018
[*]The 15 best countries to live in around the world
[*]THE BEST COUNTRY TO LIVE IN IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE GOOD LIFE From quality of life to fab beaches, these are the places to unpack your bags!
[*]Overall Best Countries Ranking
[*]Top 40 education systems in the world
[*]The 11 best school systems in the world
[*]The Top 25 countries with the best healthcare systems the world in 2017
[*]The 16 countries with the world's best healthcare systems
[*]Best Healthcare System in the World
[*]TOP 10: Countries with the best heathcare system
[*]The 5 countries with the best healthcare in the world for retirees
[*]World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems
[/LIST]

As with the matter of maternal deaths per 100K, the fact of the matter is that nearly all emboldened nations are OECD states, which given the criteria for being an OECD member state, necessarily makes them be not ****hole nations.​

Blue:
Irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of the "****hole" nations on the planet are republics, as are most of the "non-****hole" ones. Being a republic or not being one has no bearing on whether the nation is or isn't a "****hole," socialist, or anything else. Being a republic merely makes a nation have a body wherein some quantity of ostensibly elected or appointed representatives formally hold governmental policy-making authority for the country, as opposed to that authority residing with the whole of the citizenry or with an absolute monarch/dictator.[/QUOTE]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.



Again, obviously you haven't been listening to Mr. Trump and his supporters.
Click to expand...
Only to double check that the opposite of whatever they say is still true.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Maternal mortality: An American crisis
​

Can it be true that women giving birth in America are more at rick than women in dozens of other countries? Erin Moriarty has the stories behind the statistics:

Fearless is how Charles Johnson describes his wife, Kira. "We're talking about a woman that was a marathon runner, that raced cars, that was a skydiver," he said.

It never occurred to him that the greatest danger Kira would face would be going to one of the best hospitals in California to have a baby, their second son, Langston: "For us, we were really and truly expecting this experience the second time around to be a walk in the park."

Kira's doctors recommended she have a C-section because she'd had one before. The first sign of a problem came in the late afternoon of April 12, 2016, shortly after Kira gave birth. "I was sitting by Kira's bedside and I began to notice the catheter turn pink with blood," Johnson said.

A doctor ordered a CT scan. Johnson says he didn't worry at first. "Something's not quite right and I was aware of that, but we've got a plan. And she's in what I thought were great hands."

COMMENT:-

Where are the protest marches? Why aren't the "Right To Life" people up in arms about this? Why aren't the "Freedom to Choose" people up in arms about this?
​
Click to expand...

From the following USA Today article:


Hospitals know how to protect mothers. They just aren’t doing it.

Updated 12:59 pm EDT Jul. 26, 2018


Every year, thousands of women suffer life-altering injuries or die during childbirth because hospitals and medical workers skip safety practices known to head off disaster, a USA TODAY investigation has found.
Doctors and nurses should be weighing bloody pads to track blood loss so they recognize the danger sooner. They should be giving medication within an hour of spotting dangerously high blood pressure to fend off strokes.
These are not complicated procedures requiring expensive technology. They are among basic tasks that experts have recommended for years because they can save mothers’ lives.

Yet hospitals,*doctors and nurses*across the country continue to ignore them, USA TODAY found.

As a result, women are left to bleed until their organs shut down. Their high blood pressure goes untreated until they suffer strokes. They die of preventable blood clots and untreated infections. Survivors can be left paralyzed or unable to have more children.
Click to expand...


https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...BlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories
 
The Mark said:
Only to double check that the opposite of whatever they say is still true.
Click to expand...

MAKE BIG MONEY FAST

When given the chance,
bet your lunch money that

"Donald Trump has just said '__[fill in the blank]__.' and that statement is false."

is a TRUE statement.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom