Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the suffer-the-little-children dept.

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/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:42PM (#695119)

    In addition to the exclusion of abortion which skews the numbers (not only in terms of abortion-as-birth-control, but abortion of a baby likely to die anyway), the direction of causality is being assumed without evidence. Perhaps people who suffer more death for whatever reason need to actually believe in Jesus Christ?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:56PM (#695167)

    You're treating this like boring *old* science. This is exciting *new* science. You don't have to worry about pesky things like bias, falsifiability, or correlation and causation. Just read three paragraphs in a magazine article at the dentist and refuse to question any of it. Now you're doing science!

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:25PM (#695191) Journal

      Ah here's your comment - I must refresh my page more often. But it is hardly a major contribution to the discussion - you have simply made claims about 'pesky things'. How would you counter the bias (which bias?) if it was your study? What exactly do you mean by falsifiability - what is being falsified? Which specific claims do you think are showing correlation rather than causation. How would you resolve this in future studies?

      Simply saying 'It is wrong' is pointless. Why don't you explain why it is wrong, and why we should all ignore the claims being made. Offer us insightful alternative theories that will generate more discussions and questions. That would be a much more valuable contribution.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:28PM (#695194)

        Falsifiability applies to other "science" posts here. This one is pure correlation, causation, as the first post in the thread which was not me also pointed out. Try running a Ctrl-F on the word "abortion", you'll find more posts than just mine pointing out how worthless this study is.