Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday | Main | WWF Film Advertising Science and Discovery to Kids »

Links With Your Coffee - Weekend

coffee.gif

New Jersey's highest court ordered changes Wednesday to the way eyewitness identifications are used, saying the current system is not reliable enough, fails to deter police misconduct and overstates jurors' ability to evaluate the evidence.

The case is expected to influence the way eyewitness identification of suspects are handled, and not just in New Jersey.


 

Comments

re: home birth

"We should be continuing to ask how can we make women feel empowered in an environment that offers the best chance of survival for their offspring."

ok sure! That would be good. We might also consider asking how we can make physician's care and/or hospitalization for birth affordable to those women who 'choose' home birth not because they have a low risk pregnancy, and find home birth all "'latte' cool & empowering", but rather because they have no health care.

One of the grand kids was born in a natural (un-medicated) childbirth center with midwife. It was a little wing of the maternity ward in the hospital. The mother's wishes were respected, her support group was her choice. Had need arisen, more intervention was close at hand, but not wasted (e.g., used without cause). I thought that was pretty close to perfect. Of course, the mother had insurance, and lived in a good neighborhood with a modern hospital. We should all be so lucky.

I don't consider home birth a Feminist issue, however I do think as long as a woman still has that kid inside her, it is her decision what degree of assistance she wants. It's called CHOICE. THAT is the Feminist issue.

As far as I can determine the infant mortality rate for the USA is 6.3 per 1000 live births (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality) whereas in the UK, for example, it was 3.2 per 1000 (http://tinyurl.com/6jtb5g6). As the oft quoted 'best' example of a country with socialised medicine the equivalent figure for Sweden is 2.75 per 1000. The US infant mortality rates quoted in the wikipedia article, State by State, range from over 10 per 1000 (Mississippi) to 4.78 per 1000 in Minnesota. DC has an infant mortality rate of 14.1 per 1000. All figures quoted are for 2009 and do not include stillbirths. I think you can draw your own conclusions.

I would conclude that many countries count children that die within the first 24 hours as stillborn. Many countries do not count children born extremely prematurely as a live birth even if they show signs of life at birth. Some countries do not count babies under 30cm long as live births. Of course it is their right to count any way they want, but for anyone to use these statistics browbeat the only country that counts all their children as people really is disgusting.

Which countries are you referring to? Either of the ones I quoted? I would appreciate the results of your research, Syngas, or are you using the standard technique of moving the goalposts in order to make some spurious point?

Since your link doesn't work, I assume you were linking to this which, if you had bothered to read explained the problem with comparing statistics of countries that use different measuring sticks. While it's not proof, this should help you connect the dots, though I doubt you want to.

re: "Anyone to use these statistics browbeat the only country that counts all their children as people really is disgusting."

Any country that thinks they are taking the moral high ground by counting fetus' as people, but thinks it's ok to cut family planning programs, reduce access to contraception, and allow millions of citizens to go without health insurance, or health care, well.... Were there a God, She would say "What???" Hypocrisy is not morality.

Ah yes, back to the abortion is 'family planning' meme. Nevermind, go on with the mutual masterbation - The USA sucks! Yippee for socialism. Darrell Huff is smiling somewhere.

The 'links' are not links but are web addresses - if you can copy and paste you will see the point. As for the Guardian article, it refers to stillbirths rather than infant mortality. Can you please give me the US rate for stillbirths so I can compare?

*masturbation

Here ya go Embarrassing isn't it? Though I'm sure it helps the infant mortality statistics look good, and of course your ego, so in the end, it was for the best.

I'm sorry but I certainly would not be so stupid as to quote Fox News to an American site in order to back up my argument, so I cannot take you seriously when you not only keep changing the basis of your case but use the Daily Mail as your source!

Telegraph

Mirror

Are you seriously going to try to deny this happened, or are you just throwing up another Red Herring?

I am sure the world would be a better place if they had given her a baby that lived 24 hours and a bill for 100,000

Haven't you heard? Healthcare is free in the UK!

Prevalence of stillborn babies.

The US birth rate is 13.8/1000 the UK birth rate is 12.3/1000. Multiplying by populations,

US live births: 4.3 million UK live births: 770,000

From which you get stillbirth ratios (using 4,000 for the UK and 26,000 for the US):

US: 0.60% or 6.0/1000 UK: 0.52% or 5.2/1000

Infant mortality rates:

US: 7.07/1000 UK: 5.38/1000

I have to conclude that neither country is counting stillbirths in their infant mortality rates or they would be responsible for almost all infant mortality in both countries.

Why are you so rude? The America I aspire for us to become is one where fellow citizens are treated with respect, and honest disagreement is entertained with polite consideration. It's called a CIVIL SOCIETY. Ain't got nuthin' to do with Socialism.

Actually, I've mellowed quite a bit since I first started commenting here. I feel using statistics that don't compare apples to apples to put down the US is both dishonest, and disrespectful and I responded accordingly. Clearly, you don't really have a problem with dishonesty or disrespect as long as it's coming from your side of the argument. Also, I consider double-speak to be both dishonest and disrespectful. Abortion is the opposite of family planning.

I used no statistics. Nor did I mention abortion, nor equate it with family planning and access to contraception. You responded with your permission for me to masturbate. Here's the thing, I don't need your permission. It is none of your business what may or may not transpire in my bedroom. Behave your self. Did your Mom never teach you any manners?

My mom taught me to call people on their bullshit.

Oh. Yer Mum approved when you talked dirty to your Granny eh?

Hmmm. Guess that explains something. Oh well. I suppose that's what's meant by some when they speak of 'family values'.

You think you're my grandma now?

Sorry Betty Jo, but Syngas is trying desperately to bluster his way out of a hole. he has not attempted to answer my original questions and has tried to use distraction techniques and 'straw man' statements to avoid your points. The links to marginal news stories about the NHS in Britain has nothing to do with peri-natal deaths in the USA and Sweden. It's Bank Holiday here in the UK, and my dinner calls, as does cricket on the telly.

Bye.

Again, more dishonesty. Your original post compared the UK to the US in infant mortality. I clearly demonstrated that the UK's Policy on premie babies is to let them die, and call them miscarraiges. In the US, that same baby would have been counted as an infant mortality. You've conveniently ignored that, and said you were only referring to Sweden. That is no different than lying (at least by US standards). Now, run along and wave your bloody flag.

user-pic

"I clearly demonstrated that the UK's Policy on premie babies is to let them die, and call them miscarraiges."

For the benefit of folks who haven't spent much time in the intensive care units in NHS hospitals; this claim is incorrect.

(Ah, I see, you just can't wield the English language competently; you mean the policy is for /some/ premature babies to die. It's possible that this is the case in some NHS regions. It is not the case within Scotland. If the Telegraph's article is accurate it refers only to those infants born less than 22 weeks into gestation. Given the likelihood of mortality with this degree of prematurity and the limits on resources, not least staff-resources, this doesn't seem an unreasonable policy. This is consistent with other metrics in UK bioethics; e.g. the abortion law is premised on the grounds that a child younger than /24 weeks/ is not able to survive independently of the mother, though there have been some challenges from anti-abortion groups using a limited number of cases where younger infants have survived. The official (1987) verdict is that a foetus under 22 weeks is incapable of being born alive, which has not yet been overturned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm

This whole discussion sorta misses the point of the article. They only use U.S . statistics to show that home birth has double the death rate of hospital birth. Maybe there are apples and oranges in tha, but I doubt it. Pre-me Home births seem too absurd to exist. I do question that there is such a thing as "Unplanned Home births" included in some of the earlier statistics.

Betty Joe, I would really question that People are hiring in home midwives because the can't afford the night in the hospital.

My guess is the price of having a professional midwife with a nurse in your house for hours while you wait to deliver is comparable in price.

Its a choice, but the message seems to be that its a bad one.

Sygnas, as usual, your politics obscure your point.

From Sygnas Above :

Haven't you heard? Healthcare is free in the UK!

Well, no shit. And I am sure what the doctors said was that healthcare is not free for a baby 99.9% likely to die within the day. If she had said, "here is 100,000 pounds, to save my baby with." they would have jumped right on keeping the little guy alive for a few potentially agonizing days.

But to address the total aside. All systems have to make this same decision regardless of who pays. If the Insurer doesn't have a guideline, Do you want random doctors deciding which babies to help, when? Some could take factors like race or if they just don't like the parents into account. Or make it the mother's call? Potentially spending a large sum on every miscarriage that produces a heartbeat, and just passing that cost on to whom?

On your other aside, I do tend to agree that statistics do get used rather unscientifically to beat up on the American system. When really the case for single player isn't the average, but the disparity in access and the tendency to bankrupt the poor and middle class.

The other point - again it smacks of the classic republican 'straw man' technique - socialised medicine does not equal socialism, any more than the Democrat Party is Socialist. Much of Europe has had socialised medicine for decades, through many and varied political regimes.

*Democratic

Re: Pedantsareus. thank you for that review of the bidding.

Re: Syngas, sorry. my bad. I'm sure you are more polite to YOUR granny. (peace?)

re home births.

I'm confused about Dr. Tutear's assertions that: "What is also notable is that the results are consistent with all existing scientific studies, including the Johnson and Daviss study (Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America). Johnson and Daviss actually showed that homebirth with a CPM has a neonatal mortality rate almost triple that of hospital birth for low risk women."

Because, what the Johnson/Daviss study actually said, was: "Women who intended at the start of labour to have a home birth with a certified professional midwife had a low rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality, similar to that in most studies of low risk hospital births in North America. A high degree of safety and maternal satisfaction were reported, and over 87% of mothers and neonates did not require transfer to hospital."

(They also noted that hospital costs for low-risk delivery are 3 times as much as similar births.)

Tim,

This is the end

This is the end, my friend.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives