4 ms·
When a drug company does a study that shows that their drug helps some condition (and should therefore be bought by consumers and their insurance companies), we
by ghufran_syed 4y ago
When a drug company does a study that shows that their drug helps some condition (and should therefore be bought by consumers and their insurance companies), we are naturally sceptical. But when a group of public health researchers "find" that spending more money on public health measures could "prevent" deaths, we somehow take it at face value.
The uk equivalent report is much more nuanced - note the use of "might have made a difference" vs "preventable":
"Mental health remains one of the leading causes of maternal death in pregnancy and the first postnatal year. Many of the women who died from suicide or substance misuse faced multiple adversity. Assessors felt that improvements in care might have made a difference in outcome for 67% of women who died by suicide, 29% who died from substance misuse and 18% of those who died by homicide. This report emphasizes once again the importance of immediate risk management and the potential for rapid deterioration, particularly postnatally. These messages are equally important across pregnant women of all ages, especially those who have had a pregnancy loss event, but this report does show a need for special attention around mental health for pregnant teenagers."
https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports
- maerF0x0 4y agoI do still see those causes of death as preventable, just the prevention like starts many orders before the mother. Things like social safety nets which prevent crime and homicide, effective drug addiction treatment, and more generally giving people some hope instead of the endless negativity and nihilism that has been spread for at least six years now.
- ghufran_syed 4y agoWell, the united kingdom has a much more elaborate and complete "social safety net" and yet their maternal mortality report has similar conclusions to ours. The question is always what else are we willing to give up in order to pay for that? Would you be willing to have a 10% lower effective income to save a million lives every year in the US? What about to save just 1 life? Or what if you had to have a 50% lower income in order to save that 1 life? Is it still worth it? Everything is much easier if we are just relying on the mythical "other people" to pay for these things regardless of cost.
- maerF0x0 4y ago> What about to save just 1 life? I actually think this ought to be a root standard that the government sets. Then every industry will have a baseline by which they are strictly required to care (and at risk monetarily if they're negligent) . eg: $1M per life expectancy year remaining.
- itishappy 4y agoNot quite what you're looking for, but quite relevant: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/actuarial-tables https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/actuarial-tables