1. Home>
2. Reader Remarks

Reader Remarks on:

Annual Review of Vital Statistics

• Re-examining our goals
• article on vital statistics 2007
• Infant mortality in the U.S.
• life expectancy
• Childhood Mortality
• Statistics question

Re-examining our goals

Matthew A Cupp, private practice, 26 Jan 2010 9:17 PM EST

Competing interests: As a member of the human species, I may be biased.

Perhaps healthcare can make lives more comfortable and extend quality life without removing selection pressures from the species.

Child birthing is the most complex multistep physiological process in humans. I would guess it would not take long after removing the selective pressures that keep it pure for that system to fail.

back to top

article on vital statistics 2007

Tom Gates, 27 Jan 2010 11:45 AM EST

Competing interests: None declared

"The 2007 infant mortality rate (6.77/1000 live births) was slightly higher than the 2006 rate (6.69/1000 live births) but lower than the 2000 rate (6.89/1000 live births). The infant mortality rate in the U.S. continues to rank at about the 25th highest in the world."

Surely the US infant mortality rate is not 25th highest in world: ther are 44 countries in Africa, all of whom have infant mortality rates several times higher. Perhaps you meant that there are 24 countires with lower infant mortality rates, which means that the US rate is the 25th lowest in the world.

back to top

Infant mortality in the U.S.

Lyn Whinston-Perry, Executive Editor, Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 27 Jan 2010 12:48 PM EST

Competing interests: None declared

The U.S. has the 25th highest infant mortality rate among countries with populations of >2,500,000.

back to top

life expectancy

David J. Harrowe, 27 Jan 2010 1:45 PM EST

Competing interests: None declared

It would be nice to see life expectancy data according to economic class. The United States is NOT a classless society.

back to top

Childhood Mortality

William Zipperer, 27 Jan 2010 6:32 PM EST

Competing interests: None declared

I find it difficult to include the 16 - 19 year old in the category of "children". Maybe 16-17 but certainly not 18 & 19. Including these ages just biases the data towards injuries and socially related events.

back to top

Statistics question

E. Butler, 30 Jan 2010 12:16 PM EST

Competing interests: None declared

Question one is how are abortions represented in this data? How are teen pregnancies that result in abortions counted? Shouldn't the number of abortions be included in the data? A question touched upon by another reader is how can anyone older than 17 be considered a child? That really does seem like an intentional distortion of data. Also, I read that premature births have increased, in part, due to excessive numbers of Pap Tests administered and to the test being administered to women at too young an age causing scarring and other issues. Does anyone have information to share on any of these issues?

back to top

Your Remark: