Actor doesn't like southerners...but see my movie anyway...

[Tez3]

"Still, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan beat us. Why is that?
Because doctors in other countries look at a premature fetus and think “medical waste.” Our doctors think, “life to be saved,” because in fact ours is the greatest country and that’s how we roll.
Premature birth, which is the leading cause of infant mortality, is much higher in the US than in other countries — 65% higher than in Britain. The National Center for Health Statistics calls this the “primary reason” Western Europe has better numbers.
The World Health Organization notes it is “common practice” in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time. If the baby draws one breath outside the womb in the US, that’s a live birth. A lot of these babies don’t make it and drive up our mortality numbers. "


A singularly nasty and vicious thing to say, and most emphatically not true. To say that doctors here will leave a premutre baby to die? That's a disgusting thing to say, Bili you should be ashamed of yourself what type of human being are you that you can post that and actually think it's true? All over Europe there are specialist medical staff who fight to keep premature babies alive, no one thinks they are medical waste, the thought that someone can write that turns my stomach. Whatever you think the WHO says there's no European country that has a law that says babies have to be alive for any specific time to be counted as a live birth, what lies you believe. I've never liked your political views but now I think you really have reached to the lowest point possible, saying that medics here leave babies to die and treat them as waste, it's horrifying and shocking that you and anyone else can think this.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/default.aspx?id=915

http://www.rtcnorth.co.uk/news/detail.asp?ntag=792

http://www.liverpoolwomens.nhs.uk/blogger.aspx?id=99

Neonatal medicine is highly advanced in Europe treating babies that are extremely premature, I don't doubt the same is true in Canada, Australia and Japan. Germany has the most premature baby ever to have survived, I don't see that as throwing babies away as you allege.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...credible-infant-weighed-cup-coffee-birth.html

Now, you are going back on ignore because frankly, and I don't care if it's against the rules, for posting that we callously let babies die, you disgust me.

 

[billc]

He's talking about how they count for infant mortality. Read a little more closely next time please.

The World Health Organization notes it is “common practice” in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time.

Besides, when they abort/kill an innocent, unborn human life, they do consider it an unviable tissue mass, right?

I see unborn human beings, at the time of conception, as human beings who deserve a chance at life...do you, or do you wait until they reach a certain number of weeks to be seen as human beings?

 

[elder999]

One stat he missed, more Nobel prizes in medical innovation came from the United states than for the rest of the world combined.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. has simply won more Nobel prizes in general than any other country-we are, after all, the most "advanced" one with the largest population-this is simple mathematics in a way.

Of course, as in physics, chemistry, economics and literature, those prizes in physiology/medicine are often won by U.S. residents who were born in other countries........just to be fair.

And don't get me wrong, billi, I love our country, and I've been just about everywhere-there's no where I'd rather live (though there are a few places I wouldn't mind going to die) -but we're not "the greatest," on so many levels-in fact, I'm betting the only level on which any country is guaranteed to be the greatest is that it's ours-just as true for England and Zimbabwe as it is for us, if you're from England or Zimbabwe, that is.

 

[elder999]

He's talking about how they count for infant mortality. Read a little more closely next time please.



Besides, when they abort/kill an innocent, unborn human life, they do consider it an unviable tissue mass, right?

I see unborn human beings, at the time of conception, as human beings who deserve a chance at life...do you, or do you wait until they reach a certain number of weeks to be seen as human beings?

Of course, the foreign country's practice is more inline with Biblical statutes than yours is, and other civilized and religious standards seem to follow about the same standard, but hey-we can't let little details like the fact that a four month old fetus isn't viable, or an "infant" get in the way of things.

I mean, if you think that counts as a baby, then you have to live with us b eing where we are in the world in terms of infant mortality-you can't say that the stat is "artificially inflated" or that country's are artificially lowered-you just have to live up to your own imposed standard.....sorry, that just seems more than a little hypocritical to me.....

 

[Tgace]

Of course the USA is the best..I live here.

On a serious note..all the self-loathers would still find something to complain about even if we were #1 in all of those categories. Of course Im skeptical of many "studies"; far too often we are unaware of what sort of criteria they are based on. Like all the crime studies that use Hispanics as either black or white to support an obvious bias by the those conducting the studies.

In the end..any major civilization is going to be far from "perfect" not that we shouldn't try to improve where we are lacking, but the self-hatred thing? Go pedal your angst elsewhere.

 

[WC_lun]

You know there is a country has many of the things modern day American conservatives want the US to have. It has no universal health care, a death penatly that is used often, homosexuality is against the law, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman only, strict controls on abortion, religion is not seperate from the state, no enviromental protocals, strong private schools with religious focus, and lots of oil drilling. The name of the country is Iran. Something to think about.

 

[billc]

Well, conservatives want the death penalty for murderers, not people who disagree with the state. Conservatives want everyone to have healthcare, just not inefficient, corrupt, bloated government controlled health care. No one wants homosexuality against the law, they just don't t want marriage as an institution redfined. Abortion is the killing of an unwanted human being so I imagine liberals would support that as well. Conservatives want a clean environment, but they don't want environmental extremists making the rules. Conservatives want school choice so Parents can send their kids to the school that offers the best chance of a good education, where as liberals prefer to keep the poor and minority children trapped in bad schools, as long as their union supporters get their benefits. And Conservatives want oil, coal, and natural gas, you know, the energy sources that actually work, so we aren't dependent on places like Iran. If we have enough energy, through the sources that actually work, then the ones that don't work, wind, solar and electric cars can be used by the extremely wealthy to show how superior they are to the little people who use the sources that actually work.

Remember, American conservatives want limited government, as defined by the founding documents, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The liberals see those documents as obstacles to increasing government power, the conservatives see them as bulwarks against the imposition of tyranny against the people.

 

[Tez3]

He's talking about how they count for infant mortality. Read a little more closely next time please.



Besides, when they abort/kill an innocent, unborn human life, they do consider it an unviable tissue mass, right?

I see unborn human beings, at the time of conception, as human beings who deserve a chance at life...do you, or do you wait until they reach a certain number of weeks to be seen as human beings?

It's you who didn't read my post, 'he' and you are wrong as I said, there are no laws that say a child has to be alive for any set time before it's considered viable. You are still disgusting for saying we kill premature babies. You are making things up to suit yourself, your post wasn't about abortions it stated quite plainly that we leave premature babies to die.

 

[Tgace]

But he's onto a valid point about infant mortality statistics Tez..I suggest you read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas

Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.In a 2008 study, Joy Lawn estimated that a full three-fourths of the world’s neonatal deaths are counted only through highly unreliable five-yearly retrospective household surveys, instead of being reported at the time by hospitals and health-care professionals, as in the United States. Moreover, the most premature babies — those with the highest likelihood of dying — are the least likely to be recorded in infant and neonatal mortality statistics in other countries. Compounding that difficulty, in other countries the underreporting is greatest for deaths that occur very soon after birth. Since the earliest deaths make up 75 percent of all neonatal deaths, underreporting by other countries — often misclassifying what were really live births as fetal demise (stillbirths) — would falsely exclude most neonatal deaths. Any assumption that the practice of underreporting is confined to less-developed nations is incorrect. In fact, a number of published peer-reviewed studies show that underreporting of early neonatal deaths has varied between 10 percent and 30 percent in highly developed Western European and Asian countries.

Gross differences in the fundamental definition of “live birth” invalidate comparisons of early neonatal death rates. The United States strictly adheres to the WHO definition of live birth (any infant “irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which . . . breathes or shows any other evidence of life . . . whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached&#8221 and uses a strictly implemented linked birth and infant-death data set. On the contrary, many other nations, including highly developed countries in Western Europe, use far less strict definitions, all of which underreport the live births of more fragile infants who soon die. As a consequence, they falsely report more favorable neonatal- and infant-mortality rates.

A 2006 report from WHO stated that “among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.” The Bulletin of WHO noted that “it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.” Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show “any evidence of life,” even the most premature and the smallest — the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths — it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not.

Statistics.....

Which is why I am skeptical of many of these other supposed "facts" about my country that the self-flagellating libs like to throw about on their television shows.

 

[Tez3]

But he's onto a valid point about infant mortality statistics Tez..I suggest you read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas



Statistics.....

Which is why I am skeptical of many of these other supposed "facts" about my country that the self-flagellating libs like to throw about on their television shows.

However what was said had nothing to do with statistics, what was said was that we allow premature babies to die considering them to be medical waste. That's what is unforgiveable, an accusation of that type has no place in any debate or argument. No one believes statistics but his comments weren't about that, they were how great America was because you didn't allow babies to die, not that you record them differently.

 

[billc]

Tez, it was all about statistics since the silly HBO show rambled off a bunch of statistics attacking the United States. One of those very statistics was infant mortality. Thank you Tgace for adding to the information on infant mortality statistics. It supports the main idea of the rebuttal column on that show.

For emphasis from Tgace's article...

A 2006 report from WHO stated that “among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.” The Bulletin of WHO noted that “it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.” Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show “any evidence of life,” even the most premature and the smallest — the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths — it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not.

Apparently, you should read a little closer Tez, even the guy in the article doesn't specifically name Britain as a country that calls murdered, unborn humans medical waste. True, he does say that Britain is one of the countries that statistically beats the U.S. but does not specifically say Britain treates murdered, unborn humans as medical waste. He actually says, "other countries."

And the author of the column points out...

The World Health Organization notes it is “common practice” in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time. If the baby draws one breath outside the womb in the US, that’s a live birth. A lot of these babies don’t make it and drive up our mortality numbers.

 

[Tez3]

Stop wriggling Bili, what you posted was unacceptable. It had nothing to do with stattistics and everything to do with a crass disgusting accusation that there are people who leave premature babies to die, firstly you said it was about abortion now it's about statistics, make your mind up. what you posted was disgusting, no amount of blaming me for not reading it properly or saying that 'statistics show' bluster from you will mitigate your crossing the line into indecency.
Your post had nothing to do with a country being great, nothing to do with national pride, nothing to do with anything other than you posting a disgusting accusation. Your post didn't say murdered unborn babies it specifically said premature babies were left to die and thrown away as medical waste. Not unborn, it said premature babies.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.bliss.org.uk/help-for-families/you-and-your-baby/

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Premature-Babies-and-their-Problems.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/pregnancy/pregnancy_prematurelabour1.shtml

And you think we leave them to die? there's not a country in the world that leaves premmie babies to die, not everywhere has the facilities that Europe, Australia, New Zeland Japan etc and America has but no one just thinks of them as medical waste.

 

[billc]

As to Cuba beating the United States in healthcare...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/castrocare-in-the-time-of-cholera.php

Abe Greenwald cites a report from the Miami Herald that “the first cholera outbreak in Cuba in a century has left at least 15 dead and sent hundreds to hospitals all but sealed off by security agents bent on keeping a lid on the news.” CastroCare is, Greenwald reminds us, Michael Moore’s model heathcare system.
Cholera, which was supposed to have been wiped out in Cuba around 1900, is only one of many Cuban health crises. The Herald reports that “during one 24-hour period in January, three flights from Cuba to Toronto arrived with groups of passengers suffering from nausea, vomiting and fever.” There’s also “an acute soap shortage,” and “rumors of an increase in dengue, a disease transmitted by mosquitoes that thrive during the hot and rainy months of summer.”
Greenwald diagnoses the problem in his usual trenchant manner:

The people of Cuba can’t get proper treatment because they are being penalized for the worst precondition going: Communism. The same pre-condition has prevented them from even speaking of their misery: “a hospital employee reported that doctors are signing death certificates saying that the victims died from ‘acute respiratory insufficiency’ rather than cholera.”


​

The Miami Herald story...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/06/2885410/cholera-reportedly-kills-15-sickens.html

People in Cuba say hospitals are chaotic and being controlled by security agents who don’t want alarming reports to get out.

Re​

Manzanillo human rights activist Tania de la Torre, the wife of Marquez, said residents were boiling their water but could not wash their hands as often as they wished because the city of about 130,000 people has an acute soap shortage.
Calls from El Nuevo Herald to the Celia Sánchez Manduley Hospital in Manzanillo, the biggest health institution in the region, were answered by women who said they were not authorized to comment.
Martínez told El Nuevo Herald that he had gathered his information from residents and health workers in the region. Some of them called him from public phones because police and state security agents are trying to block reports on the cholera outbreak, he added.

​

​

Yeah Jeff Daniels, you are so right about America. Perhaps you could fly down to Cuba the next time you get a cold...

 

[elder999]

that calls murdered, unborn humans medical waste. True, he does say that Britain is one of the countries that statistically beats the U.S. but does not specifically say Britain treates murdered, unborn humans as medical waste. He actually says, "other countries."

And the author of the column points out...

Again, this is logically and scientifically fallacious.

Humans are born.

The "unborn," are neither human, nor can they be "murdered." except under certain narrow legal defintions, such as murder of a pregnant woman.

Otherwise, abortion doctors and women (note that I don't say "mothers," because they're not ) that obtain abortions would be tried for murder-and they aren't. They weren't even tried for murder when abortion was largely illegal in the U.S. In 1979, in California, an abortionist named William Waddill was tried twice for strangling an infant aborted in 1977-I say "infant," because this was a 28-31 week fetus, clearly viable, clearly outside the guidelines of what was acceptable to abort, and aborted by saline-basically "born." As disgusting as that is, the jury deadlocked twice, and the charges were eventually dismissed.

Not born. Not human. Not murdered. Sorry-I'm mostly on your side with this, but that's where it stands, legally and scientifically. I mean, in a society where a doctor can strangle a baby-on the fourth attempt!-in front of witnesses, and not be convicted of murder, there is clearly no such thing as a "murdered, unborn human."

"Higher standard," indeed......

 

[Tez3]

Again, this is logically and scientifically fallacious.

Humans are born.

The "unborn," are neither human, nor can they be "murdered." except under certain narrow legal defintions, such as murder of a pregnant woman.

Otherwise, abortion doctors and women (note that I don't say "mothers," because they're not ) that obtain abortions would be tried for murder-and they aren't. They weren't even tried for murder when abortion was largely illegal in the U.S. In 1979, in California, an abortionist named William Waddill was tried twice for strangling an infant aborted in 1977-I say "infant," because this was a 28-31 week fetus, clearly viable, clearly outside the guidelines of what was acceptable to abort, and aborted by saline-basically "born." As disgusting as that is, the jury deadlocked twice, and the charges were eventually dismissed.

Not born. Not human. Not murdered. Sorry-I'm mostly on your side with this, but that's where it stands, legally and scientifically. I mean, in a society where a doctor can strangle a baby-on the fourth attempt!-in front of witnesses, and not be convicted of murder, there is clearly no such thing as a "murdered, unborn human."

"Higher standard," indeed......

What Billi has accused us of doing however has nothing to do with abortion, nowhere near it,in fact the complete opposite, he's says we leave premature babies ie babies..wanted babies mind you..who for one reason or another are born too early, that's a kick in the teeth to any parent whose baby was born prematurely. These aren't mothers who've gone for abortion these are mothers who have the awful trauma of watching their babies being born early, placed in incubators with the medical staff doing everything they can.
I take it there's no apology for this accusation coming from Bili? to accuse people of leaving premature babies to die is wicked, he can't cover it up by saying he actually meant aborted featuses because he didn't, he said and meant premature babies.

 

[elder999]

I take it there's no apology for this accusation coming from Bili? to accuse people of leaving premature babies to die is wicked, he can't cover it up by saying he actually meant aborted featuses because he didn't, he said and meant premature babies.

Apology? :lfao:

Not .

 

[billc]

No apology tez, the statement that you are complaining about came from the author of the article I was using to show the difference in how each country measures infant mortality, in the discussion of the jeff daniels rant against the U.S. The difference pointed out is true, his other statement may not be but that was not what I was using the article for. So again, no apology.

 

[Tez3]

No apology tez, the statement that you are complaining about came from the author of the article I was using to show the difference in how each country measures infant mortality, in the discussion of the jeff daniels rant against the U.S. The difference pointed out is true, his other statement may not be but that was not what I was using the article for. So again, no apology.

Well that shows your true colours, you post something that accuses us of leaving premmie babies to die and no apology. You post something that contains false information that you purport to be true and no apology. Disgusting behaviour, no one of any sensibilty would post such rubbish up in the first place, you seem ignorant of what you are pushing people to believe. To say it's nothing to do with you is ingenous and just plain nasty. Shame on you.

 

[billc]

You know, perhaps the author of the article read this from Great Britain, before he wrote his article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'
Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

What the medical guidelines say...


Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.
Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.
The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'
Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.
The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.
The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.
More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.
But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.
Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.
The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.
But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.
Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.
Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.
The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.
However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.
Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

Soooo...before you lecture me, and before you lecture the author, perhaps you should write the Daily Mail, the NHS and lecture them on their story and the policy of the NHS. Is this story true, you tell me. If it is, then I think you'll be waiting a long time for an apology from me. Perhaps you should google a little more before you try lecturing people on what they post tez.

And before you pull the "it's only the Daily Mail," line...here we go from the vaunted BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm

Professor Margaret Brazier, who chaired the committee that produced the guidelines, said: "Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby's chances of survival are low.

"However, we don't think it is always right to put a baby through the stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get any better and death is inevitable."
The inquiry also looked at longer-term support for families, and resource implications for the NHS.

Do not revive' earliest babies

The report says babies born at 22 weeks should not be resuscitated

Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says.

And another look at NHS guidelines on premature babies...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...er-when-premature-babies-should-be-saved.html

During a two-year inquiry, its working party took evidence not just from doctors and nurses in neonatal medicine, but from professors of philosophy, and religious leaders.


But however carefully the debate was handled, the categorical nature of its final recommendations had an incendendiary effect.

The guidelines were clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated.

If a child was born between 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy it should not be standard practice to offer medical intervention, which should only be given if parents requested it, and following a through discussion about the likely outcomes, the document said.

Sooo, perhaps the author was simply reading the NHS guidelines...so if you have a complaint, take it up with the NHS and the folks who make those decisions...

The actual guidelines can be found online...

D. Gestation 22 weeks or more, or uncertain gestation with detectable FH in labour
1. Manage on delivery floor
2. Inform the consultant obstetrician.
3. Obstetric and paediatric registrar or consultant, visiting patient together if possible, should counsel patient and partner that:
a. The baby may be pre-viable and die within a few hours of birth, or be stillborn.
b. The paediatric registrar would attend the delivery to examine the baby.
c. If, at delivery, the baby is clearly pre-viable, no active resuscitation will be attempted.

Oh, what was that again...for added emphasis for you tez...

c. If, at delivery, the baby is clearly pre-viable, no active resuscitation will be attempted