Point-Counterpoint: Infant Mortality Data

USA today recently published an editorial about the shameful numbers of infant mortality in the United States. The numbers were interpreted and backed by data from reputable organizastions such as the World Health Organization. It lists a number of factors in increased infant mortality including asphyxia, SIDS, and the use of fertility drugs.  Considering these factors, the article says, "The point is that more babies can be saved. 'We don't have to settle for this ... We can change this.' "

Also published was a counterpoint editorial piece, Another View: Misleading Neonatal Data Distort Rankings, which argues that data and the interpretation of data in studies such as those on infant mortality can be dramatized to create affectand comparision. "Infant mortality rates are extremely misleading, contaminated by factors unrelated to health care quality, and plagued by inconsistencies and gross inaccuracies, all of which specifically disadvantage the United States," the article claims.  

This point-counterpoint raises numerous interesting ideas, both from the standpoint of how we define and measure infant mortality to how we collect and use data to advocate, communicate, and inform.

What do you think?  Check out more on how to use data to your advantage in our Work Smarter section, and leave us a comment below with your thoughts on infant mortality data and how it should be used.