Researchers report in areas with greater numbers of Christian fundamentalists, infant mortality rates are higher than in areas with more mainstream Christians. The study reveals external factors such as lack of social support, birth defects, poverty and lack of insurance, in addition to religious conviction, are the main reasons for the increased mortality rates.
The odds of an infant dying before their first birthday are higher in counties with greater proportions of conservative Protestants, especially fundamentalists, than in counties with more mainline Protestants and Catholics, according to a new Portland State University study The study, published online in May in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, supports the idea that the more insular, anti-institutional culture of fundamentalists can lead to poorer health outcomes.
Ginny Garcia-Alexander, a sociology professor in PSU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the study's lead author, examined the influence of religion on postneonatal infant mortality rates, or the number of deaths from four weeks through the first year, using data from 1990 through 2010. Garcia-Alexander said a leading cause of infant death in the first 28 days is birth defects, which can be heavily influenced by advances in medical knowledge and technology. By contrast, deaths in the next 11 months of life are more often linked to external factors such as poverty, lack of insurance, social support networks and religion.
Garcia-Alexander said the findings mirror trends seen in adult mortality rates, where areas with more mainline Protestants and Catholics had better health outcomes than areas with more conservative Protestants.
The study's findings build on previous research that says that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism are civically minded, externally oriented faiths that emphasize community-level care. For example, church-affiliated hospitals and social-service providers such as Catholic Charities can bolster the health infrastructure of local communities.
Source: https://neurosciencenews.com/infant-mortality-fundamentalism-9165/
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:27PM (4 children)
Speaking of the Good Book, this particular Bible verse seems particularly relevant to these fools:
If God lets you live in a time and place where medical science is so advanced, is it not equivalent to casting yourself down from a pinnacle of the temple to refuse these blessings of advanced medical science when you are seriously ill? And worse yet it if it is their own children whom they are shunning medical science in their misguided faith: they are essentially pushing them from the metaphorical pinnacle, testing the Lord to catch them even as they fall to their deaths. Their hypocrisy is sickening.
Here’s an article from the indefatigable Orac [respectfulinsolence.com] about a related trend.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:42PM (2 children)
I wonder if these no-medicine sects are exclusive enough that there is any noticeable evolutionary effect? Probably not yet, as they have only been around a short while AFAIK, and they probably wouldn't consent to having DNA taken or studied, but it would be interesting to see how populations practicing natural selection compare to the whole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)
Their fecundity would compensate for excess mortality. Assuming they hang around for long enough and are isolated enough, they would probably end up physically healthier and mentally inferior to the general population. Simple evolution in that direction would be enhanced by the sickest/smartest giving up their religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:52AM
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:55PM
It *might* be. You would really have to examine a specific case carefully and try to weigh a lot of different things to come to an honest decision on that basis, I would think. One of the interesting things about the books of the bible is that if you're trying to use it as a law code you can find contradictory precedents quite frequently. If you view them more as revelations of principle, than of prescriptive law, it's possible to make much more sense of it, but it no longer removes the need to exercise judgment.
Exercising judgement is something most people will go to great lengths to avoid.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?