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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:37PM (15 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:37PM (#695204) Journal

    It is honestly baffling how often I see this idea around here and Slashdot (which this site used to be much better than, but seems to sink closer to that level daily), that the only reason a person might post on the internet without making up a little identity to attach all their thoughts to is fear.

    No, but if you don't use a nickname then it is hard to attribute comments to any specific individual. And you might have already made several insightful comments elsewhere in the thread but it isn't immediately apparent to me if that is the case.

    If posting anonymously is frowned upon here, perhaps the feature should be disabled. Otherwise I intend to continue doing so.

    I sincerely hope that you do - we are more than happy to give everyone the ability to express their views.

    Now as you seem to have identified several areas in which the study falls short why don't you explain them to us, rather than just say 'it is wrong'? That is the whole point of the discussion. You feel sufficiently strongly on the subject to have made your comment, why don't you explain how the study could be done better and in a way that addresses your complaints about it?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:52PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:52PM (#695210)

    It's been stated a dozen times. If I search the comments of this page for the word "abortion", I get 18 results. If I search the article you posted, I get zero. We're having a conversation about infant mortality and religious fundamentalism. Is the problem clear yet?

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:19PM (13 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:19PM (#695226) Journal

      So the only problem is abortion. I said that in far fewer words that you did.

      If I search the article you posted, I get zero.

      The summary is just that - it is only a summary of the main findings of the full article.

      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.

      'birth defects' are mentioned as one of the external factors which would suggest that they, and abortions that occur because of fetal abnormality, have already been considered. But it also goes on to say that there are other factors that come into play. Are you discounting all of them simply because of the number of abortions might be different in the areas where Christian Fundamentalists occur in greater proportion than elsewhere. If so, why are you discounting them? Infant mortality is also discussed in the full article (which you will, of course, have read) but it says:

      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.

      Note that it points out that the figures mirror trends seen in adult mortality rates - so it is clearly not a case of 'abortions' in these cases? The other factors such as insurance, medical advances, religion etc are still applicable. So you seem to be basing your entire discounting of the study on a specific sub-case - which might or might not be valid - and you cannot see a problem with that.?

      Is the problem clear yet?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:31PM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:31PM (#695229)

        I'm discounting the study because it is impossible to make any sort of conclusion out of it that isn't an assumption of causality. The one that has been chosen, "Christian fundamentalists have higher infant mortality rates" is only one of several dozen equally valid conclusions they could have reached depending on how much data they collected and from where. For instance:


        • Islamic fundamentalists have higher infant mortality rates
          Children with birth defects who aren't aborted frequently die anyway
          Large families have higher infant mortality rates
          Poor people die more frequently
          Medicine helps people live longer

        But for some reason we landed solely on "Christian fundamentalists" as the backwards group of science-haters and none of the potential causes of the increased mortality rate are itemized in such a way that they can be separated from one another.

        It's almost like this entire study was just an exercise in a bullshit culture war.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:34PM (#695231)

          The big disadvantage of posting anon is inability to edit posts, so unfortunately I'll have to assume everyone can just pretend the bullet points are in there.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:08PM (10 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:08PM (#695256) Journal

          Islamic fundamentalists have higher infant mortality rates

          People living in the USA of other religions appear to have been considered. If you are talking about outside the USA, then your comment is irrelevant - they are re not part of the discussion.

          Children with birth defects who aren't aborted frequently die anyway..

          Infant mortality rates were considered and discussed. Adults are not aborted - it is called murder in some countries - but the figures found in the study are equally applicable to them too. You have read the article, or even the summary, haven't you?

          Large families have higher infant mortality rates

          You have not provided any evidence that 1. Christian Fundamentalist families are sized any differently than other religions, and 2. Larger families have higher infant mortality rates. But, even so, the mortality rate is higher - all other things being equal - for people living in areas being studied than outside of them.

          Poor people die more frequently

          Let's assume that I accept your claim (most people only die once, but I know what you mean), the article points out that poorer people living in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas also die at a higher rate than poorer people in other areas.

          Medicine helps people live longer

          The study found that medicine helps people live less long in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas than elsewhere.

          It cannot all be explained away by spurious claims about 'abortion rates' or some such nonsense.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:23PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:23PM (#695267)

            People living in the USA of other religions appear to have been considered. If you are talking about outside the USA, then your comment is irrelevant - they are re not part of the discussion.

            [citation needed]. The article and study abstract mention "fundamentalist christians" as well as protestants and catholics. I see absolutely nothing about any non-Christian religions.

            Infant mortality rates were considered and discussed.

            The issue isn't that they weren't mentioned, it's that you can't remove the effect of it from the statistics. Just saying "Oh yeah, some of this might be due to the fact that these people don't believe in abortion" doesn't do *anything* to shine a light on how much of an impact it has. That's the important part, and the part you keep ignoring to say "BUT THEY MENTIONED THAT". Great, now figure out how much it accounts for and remove it from the stats.

            You have not provided any evidence that 1. Christian Fundamentalist families are sized any differently than other religions, and 2. Larger families have higher infant mortality rates. But, even so, the mortality rate is higher - all other things being equal - for people living in areas being studied than outside of them.

            Large families correspond to high religiosity. They also correspond to poverty. Poverty corresponds to low life expectancy.

            Let's assume that I accept your claim (most people only die once, but I know what you mean), the article points out that poorer people living in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas also die at a higher rate than poorer people in other areas.

            That's weird, because according to the abstract, all their data came from inside the United States.

            We conduct ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses on postneonatal IMRs (PNIMRs) using county‐level data from the National Center for Health Statistics Linked Birth and Infant Death Data (1990, 2000, and 2006–2010), churches and church membership data, and the Area Health Resource File.

            So tell me again how this was an international study that took into account the mortality rates in Africa and the Middle East and determined things were worse for fundamentalist Christians in the US and not just bait for non-religious people in the US who hate Christianity but love every other religion to pat themselves on the back for being so much smarter than their neighbors.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:21PM (3 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:21PM (#695299) Journal

              The article and study abstract mention "fundamentalist christians" as well as protestants and catholics

              Which, where I come from, are all different religions. They are Christian but the study does not mention any other religions. That could mean that they were statistically irrelevant and therefore not worthy of special mention. I really don't know how many Taoists, Sikhs or Rastafarians live in the US. You tried to bring in the case of Islamic fundamentalists, not me. I'll assume that was an attempt to start an argument that you thought you could win, rather than the one we were having. The study also doesn't say that Muslims were ignored.

              abortion....to shine a light on how much of an impact it has

              As the figures for infant mortality (where abortion might be a factor) mirror the figures for adults (where abortion isn't a factor) then it would seem to have had very little impact on the outcome. Or are you suggesting that in fundamentalist regions of the US abortion of adults is widely practiced?

              all their data came from inside the United States.

              I know - "If you are talking about outside the USA, then your comment is irrelevant " - I've tried to keep you on track twice now.

              So tell me again how this was an international study

              Please tell me where I said that. They compared predominantly fundamentalist regions (of America) with other regions (of America).

              that took into account the mortality rates in Africa and the Middle East and determined things were worse

              I have never suggested that the study did that. It compared regions in America. Why do you think otherwise? I did say "for people living in areas being studied (i.e fundamentalist regions) than outside of them (the rest of the USA)". The parts in brackets are an expansion to explain more clearly to you that this is US study comparing figures collect about one area of the US from another area of the US.

              But the study has found:

              [...] 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.

              You have argued that the problem is caused by the abortion rate where I have argued that, as the figures closely correlate to those of adults living in the same areas, the abortion rate cannot be used to explain all of the study's findings. You can scoff all you like, but you cannot convincingly explain why anyone should just discount anything the report says as being wrong. 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.

              Now, as it is approaching midnight here, I am going to go to sleep. We can continue tomorrow if you wish.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (#695303)

                Dude, the study is grouped by counties. That means it literally only covers three religions. "Fundamentalist Christianity", Protestantism and Catholicism. There is a non-zero number of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists in this country, but this study will never have anything to say about them because they do not make up a majority of any county in the country.

                So basically, this study says "We checked mortality rates in different US counties, and the ones with more fundamentalist Christians than protestants and catholics have higher rates of death". That's great, but then the implication of cause and effect come without taking into consideration any of the other things that differentiate a fundamentalist majority county from a protestant or catholic one. For instance, the fact that, as mentioned dozens of times already, the fact that the fundamentalist ones aren't going to be aborting fetuses with birth defects. The study might mention it, but it still lumps those birth defect deaths together with the rest, so ultimately the numbers are still tainted. Another important fact being ignored is that poorer people are typically more religious than people with more money, and also lower life-expectancy.

                I honestly don't know how to proceed with this argument because you, again, seem to believe that I'm arguing that their conclusions don't match their statistics. I'm actually arguing that their choice in sources for statistics was solely political and if the methodology of their data gathering method were different, the study would say something different. But they didn't, so it says what they want.

                Statistics are funny like that, you can pick and choose them and say anything you want about the world with them. The fact that this post was made on the same day as "People With Religious Affiliations Live Longer". The Christians got a study to make them feel good about themselves, you guys got one too. Now if only we had one that told us something useful about the world.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:45PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:45PM (#695306)

                  To further drive this point home, because I know you will willfully misinterpret it:

                  Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Boston) is a Catholic county.
                  Fairfax County, Virginia is a Protestant county.
                  Sullivan County, Tennesee is a Fundamentalist Christian county.

                  If you think the life expectancies in these areas are different because of religion and not because of their economies, you are hopelessly naive about the world you live in.

                  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:44AM

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:44AM (#695480) Journal

                    If you think the life expectancies in these areas are different because of religion and not because of their economies, you are hopelessly naive about the world you live in.

                    I have not suggested that religion is the main reason, or even the only reason. The study clearly says "such as poverty, lack of insurance, social support networks and religion". I would suggest that 'poverty' probably covers the failing economies in the counties that you have mentioned. The phrase 'such as' also suggests that the authors of the study do not claim that the reasons that they state in that sentence are the sole reasons that have been identified.

                    I'm not at all sure why you should accuse me of 'willfully misinterpreting' the data. I am merely arguing that, whatever the causes of the differences between the areas being discussed in the study, there is something that you cannot explain to my satisfaction but for the time being we will have to agree to disagree upon.

                    No matter. This discussion began because you said [soylentnews.org]:

                    Both posts are clickbait choose-your-own-reality trash that make ridiculous conclusions based on small samples and a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.

                    The people who write this shit, and the people who propagate it without understanding how little value it actually carries, are everything wrong with pop "science".

                    I hope that this discussion between us has also shown the value of the stories we print. If we simply accept them at face value then we are missing out on what is, to me, a very valuable aspect of this site, namely that it gives us all the chance to enter into a serious and intelligent discussion about the stories that we print. I have enjoyed the discussion with you but I fear that we will get no further on this particular topic. There will be other stories today and in the future. Hopefully we will meet again where, who knows, next time we might be in full agreement with each other. Have a good day and keep posting AC!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:28PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:28PM (#695273)

            You have read the article, or even the summary, haven't you?

            The study found that medicine helps people live less long in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas than elsewhere.

            I read the study, but maybe you didn't. The data the study used was sourced from the National Center for Health Statistics.
            Linked Birth and Infant Death Data [cdc.gov]

            In the linked birth and infant death data set the information from the death certificate is linked to the information from the birth certificate for each infant under 1 year of age who dies in the United States, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and Guam.

            Maybe tone back the condescension next time you decide to project so hard.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:39PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:39PM (#695281)

            Additionally, there is no Islamic fundamentalist movement in the United States to be reflected in these statistics and have anything to compare to. "Christian fundamentalists" are the only fundamentalists we have in any sort of significant number, so they're essentially being compared to non-fundamentalist Christians and a handful of non-religious millennials. Expand the dataset to somewhere with a high population of first generation immigrants from a fundamentalist Islamic country like Europe and the picture changes.

            You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing with their conclusion based on their dataset. I'm criticizing the entire concept that studying this dataset can ever tell us anything other than "people who believe the Christian God made the Earth 6000 years ago are better at surviving than people who just believe the Christian God made the Earth."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:41PM (#695282)

              worse at surviving*

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (#695304) Journal

              Expand the dataset to somewhere with a high population of first generation immigrants from a fundamentalist Islamic country like Europe and the picture changes.

              We are not arguing about 'first generation fundamentalist Muslims' - you are trying again to change the argument to one that you think you can win. This study is comparing regions in America with other regions in America.

              so they're essentially being compared to non-fundamentalist Christians and a handful of non-religious millennials

              So what? When the comparison is made then there appears to be different outcomes between the two groups being compared. Both groups are in America so the study asks 'Why should there be different outcomes within the one country?". And it has found several contributory factors which it clearly states - religion being just one of them.

              You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing with their conclusion based on their dataset. I'm criticizing the entire concept that studying this dataset can ever tell us anything other than "people who believe the Christian God made the Earth 6000 years ago are better at surviving than people who just believe the Christian God made the Earth."

              No, I am under no such impression. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to me which of the invisible beings that you want to worship you choose. But, if you do make a choice, then the study finds that it can affect the life expectancy in ways that you wouldn't have imagined, and that "that the more insular, anti-institutional culture of fundamentalists can lead to poorer health outcomes." If you feel that this is an insult to your own religion let me assure you of two things. Firstly, I am debating this issue based on the findings in the study and secondly, your right to worship who you choose has absolutely no influence on how I have to respect your religion.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:48PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:48PM (#695310)

                it doesn't matter to me which of the invisible beings that you want to worship you choose. But, if you do make a choice, then the study finds that it can affect the life expectancy in ways that you wouldn't have imagined

                Yep, here's the part where you take the factual statement they made and twist it into an implication they only hinted at.

                "affect" is a term of causation. Nothing in this study finds anything affects anything. What it finds is a correlation, which scientific illiterates run with and assume causation.