I’ve gotten into some interesting debates over health care recently, and one of the things constantly thrown in my face is the rate of infant mortality in the US as opposed to other developed nations.  It’s true.  A higher percentage of infants die in the United States than in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and give or take about 30 more.  Even Cuba and Taiwan have lower rates of infant death.

Last April, The New York Times speculated that a possible reason for this is the number of premature babies born in the US.  In an October editorial, the same newspaper published this:

Infant mortality is associated with many factors, including the health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care, and such cultural problems as rising obesity and drug use.

That makes it difficult to identify the cause of the United States’ poor performance. Some researchers blame an increase in premature births, many by Caesarean section. The chief lesson we draw is that the American health care system, despite the highest expenditures in the world, is badly in need of an overhaul.

Obviously, our health care isn’t as top notch as it is in other countries, with lower levels of infant deaths.  This is a very persuasive argument in favor of socialized health care, or a government option, or universal coverage, or whatever it’s being called this week.  Nothing quite as sad as a dead baby, is there?  We should try to be more like the countries with less dead babies!

Except for the fact that if a mother wants a shot at giving birth to a child, there is no better place in the world for her to achieve that goal than in the United States.  The CDC reports that the reason for so many infant deaths in the United States is the high rate of premature births.  That obviously has to do with the health of the mother and the prenatal care she received, doesn’t it?  Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the United States has the most advanced fertility treatments on the planet.  By definition, a woman unable to get pregnant on her own is considered “higher-risk” than normal.  That’s not to knock fertility treatments, because I think it’s amazing that people are able to have children using modern technology.  But let’s face the facts- women that can’t get pregnant on their own are most likely going to have a harder time staying pregnant.  Does that mean that we should deny a woman the chance to have a child of her own, because she is less likely to carry a pregnancy to term and she might bring our statistics down?

The United States also tops the list for keeping women pregnant longer.  Which means that there are many, many dead babies due to preterm labor that would have been labeled miscarriages, had the mother not used advanced medicine and technology to identify preterm labor and take action to stop it.  Should we not stop preterm labor in a 20 week fetus because the survival rate is zilch?  What if we can give that kiddo 2-4 more weeks in the womb?  The chances of survival at that point is something, if not high.  Or do we not even try, because the baby will probably die any way, and we don’t want to lower those statistics.

Speaking of miscarriages, let’s talk about how those death rate numbers compare.  In the US- EVERY baby born showing even the smallest sign of life (like a heart beat) is counted as a live birth, and usually “heroic” measures are taken to save that child.  In the UK, babies are not resuscitated if born before 24 weeks of pregnancy.  In the Netherlands, it’s 25 weeks.  In some parts of Switzerland, only babies longer than 30cm are counted as a live birth.  Germany, Canada, and France omit criteria set by WHO to determine live births, and also struggle with obtaining accurate birth records.

So I guess if the United States would just stop with the nonsense of trying to get infertile women pregnant, keeping woman with risky pregnancies pregnant, trying to save the babies if they’re born prematurely, and then if all intervention fails and the baby dies, actually calling it an infant death instead of a still birth, our infant mortality rate might be as low as Singapore’s.