I'm only surprised that we're going to have a reasonable debate

Interesting story ("Shelby County's infant-mortality rate 'inflated', new study says"--Commercial Appeal) about use (and abuse, I think) of medical statistics, in this case related to "infant mortality." Various local blogs are discussing the issue:
Post Politics and Tiny Cat Pants and seemingly expressing some surprise at the story. I'm only surprised that we may possibly have a reasonable debate on the relevant issues.

From the Commercial Appeal article:

“The problem is much more of extreme prematurity than infant mortality,” [Professor and study author Bryan L.] Williams said.

The distinction involves more than mere semantics. Fetal and infant mortality arise from much different causes and require entirely different solutions, he said.

Infant mortality often is the result of disease, sudden infant death syndrome, violence or inadequate health care. But fetal mortality typically stems from extreme prematurity.

Since extremely premature births occur in Shelby County at a rate four times the national average, Williams said local officials should focus on possible causes, which could include various stresses during pregnancy, drug abuse, obesity or hypertension.

You know what they say about statistics . . . and the truth is that statistics like these are powerful PR weapons in gaining funding, scoring political points, etc. whether generically trashing America or arguing “how much we need to socialize medicine” or need to “stop oppressing certain populations” or whatever.

I’m glad they did an in-depth study, but it’s a shame that the obvious distinction between “extreme prematurity” and “infant mortality” was previously overlooked.