Castro has passed on

[Ziggurat]

It is doubtful given the embargo on Cuba from the US that drugs and equipment to enable successful treatment of infants below these limits were available.

Medical equipment can be exported directly from the US to Cuba:
https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2001/fsjulydec/2612.htm
Furthermore, the US embargo on Cuba does not prevent European companies from exporting medical equipment to Cuba.

So who should be blamed the Cuban government for not futilely treating these infants and prolonging their suffering or the US government for the embargo?

We were talking about whether or not the infant mortality rate numbers can be used for meaningful comparison. We were not talking about the merits of Cuban health policy for infants. Even if they are taking the best possible course of action given the constraints they have, that doesn't mean the numbers are comparable.

 

[caveman1917]

Others have already mentioned problems trying to compare infant morality between countries. Here are a few other references:

From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...m-harkin-says-cuba-has-lower-child-mortality/
Some say Cuba is so concerned with its infant mortality and life-expectancy statistics that the government takes heavy-handed actions to protect their international rankings. "Cuba does have a very low infant mortality rate, but pregnant women are treated with very authoritarian tactics to maintain these favorable statistics," said Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld, the chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma who spent nine months living in Cuba to study the nation's health system. "They are pressured to undergo abortions that they may not want if prenatal screening detects fetal abnormalities. If pregnant women develop complications, they are placed in ‘Casas de Maternidad’ for monitoring, even if they would prefer to be at home."

And also from: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ (Note: This is a private article/blog, so skepticism is waranted...)
...in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.... This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams.
(Again, that last reference was a blog, so skepticism is waranted; I have heard similar arguments before, but it was a while ago and I can't find the reference articles.)

So even if the Cuban government was reporting the statistics accurately, there may be other factors affecting the data.

The first argues in favour of low infant mortality rate, the second is a private blog.

 

[Segnosaur]

The first argues in favour of low infant mortality rate...

Yes it does... But it also says that it gets that type of low mortality is achieved in part by putting restrictions on women that would be impossible to implement in a free society. Forced abortions and/or putting pregnant women under house arrest would definitely be frowned upon throughout most of the western world.

So, its not the quality of health care, its the treatment of women like cattle for part of their pregnancy that is the cause of the better infant mortality results in Cuba.

the second is a private blog.

Well, duh! I pointed that out in my response (twice!). I even pointed out that skepticism is warranted when reading that article.

Now, I have seen other references that show the differences in the way infant morality is calculated... None have specifically touched on Cuba vs. the U.S., but it does show that maybe the Blog article may have some validity. (At least its something that should be investigated, rather than assuming that "Cuban Healthcare > American Healthcare".)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Differences_in_measurement

 

[caveman1917]

Yes it does... But it also says that it gets that type of low mortality is achieved in part by putting restrictions on women that would be impossible to implement in a free society. Forced abortions and/or putting pregnant women under house arrest would definitely be frowned upon throughout most of the western world.

Do you have any evidence for forced abortions or women being put under house arrest for being pregnant?

And can we leave out the nationalist propaganda crap? Yes it is true that the free Western world would frown upon house arrest for pregnant women, why bother leaving the house standing, when you can take it down as well in a much bigger display of forced abortion? Do you think that something like mandatory vaccination is also an infringement on yer freedomz?

 

[Segnosaur]

Do you have any evidence for forced abortions or women being put under house arrest for being pregnant?

Go back and look at my previous post.

In it I posted an article from Politifact (a source that is generally seen as reputable... i.e. not some right-wing hack site), that quoted a University Professor (i.e. someone with some academic credentials, not some politician or right-wing gas bag) who had actually spent many months in Cuba examining their health care system. (i.e. someone who actually had relevant experience).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11608762&postcount=99

And can we leave out the nationalist propaganda crap? Yes it is true that the free Western world would frown upon house arrest for pregnant women, why bother leaving the house standing, when you can take it down as well in a much bigger display of forced abortion?

That is without a doubt one of the most bizarre irrelevant statements I have ever seen here. Not sure what exact point is that you have to make. That because Israel uses its military in a way you don't like that Castro was really a good guy?

Do you think that something like mandatory vaccination is also an infringement on yer freedomz?

Again, why is that relevant?

(I have no problem with, for example, children being required to be vaccinated to attend school, or vaccination requirements for employment purposes.)

 

[caveman1917]

Go back and look at my previous post.

In it I posted an article from Politifact (a source that is generally seen as reputable... i.e. not some right-wing hack site), that quoted a University Professor (i.e. someone with some academic credentials, not some politician or right-wing gas bag) who had actually spent many months in Cuba examining their health care system. (i.e. someone who actually had relevant experience).

Yes I know and it said nothing about forced abortions or women being put under house arrest for being pregnant. The closest thing was that when pregnant women develop complications they are required to stay in a maternity ward for constant monitoring, it doesn't say which complications though. And that some women who develop pregnancy complications are being "pressured" to have an abortion, but it again doesn't say which complications and what this "pressure" exactly consists of. It's certainly no evidence for forced abortion (abortion against the will of the woman), no more than it is evidence for doctors strongly advising abortion in certain medical circumstances.

That is without a doubt one of the most bizarre irrelevant statements I have ever seen here. Not sure what exact point is that you have to make. That because Israel uses its military in a way you don't like that Castro was really a good guy?

Don't ********. You've smuggled in claims about "free societies in the Western world" in between your other claims about forced abortions and women put under house arrest for being pregnant. Maybe your Western supremacy comes so natural to you that it would be "bizarre" to even imagine to consider otherwise, but that is certainly no failing of mine. So can we just leave the nationalist propaganda crap out of it? There's certainly a role for it, but let's leave that to the designated officials to embarrass themselves with.

Again, why is that relevant?

You seem to think that forced medical supervision in situations which present danger to unborn children is like "so not free, like we do in the Western world". So it only makes sense to ask you about similar situations where the government overrides the parent's consent regarding a medical procedure on children.

In other words, it is relevant for testing whether there's some consistent reasoning behind that "women treated like cattle during part of their pregnancy" stuff, or if it's just another variation on essentially this:

 

[Planigale]

Medical equipment can be exported directly from the US to Cuba:
https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2001/fsjulydec/2612.htm
Furthermore, the US embargo on Cuba does not prevent European companies from exporting medical equipment to Cuba.



We were talking about whether or not the infant mortality rate numbers can be used for meaningful comparison. We were not talking about the merits of Cuban health policy for infants. Even if they are taking the best possible course of action given the constraints they have, that doesn't mean the numbers are comparable.

There were considerable barriers, specific paperwork, end use monitoring all of which makes it expensive to sell into Cuba. The consequence being that it was not cost effective to organise this for a small market, and the costs for a Cuban purchaser would be considerably greater than e.g. the costs of a Puerto Rican purchaser. Yes in theory there was no absolute ban, just barriers that effectively prevented commercial trade.

The US has a long track record of extra-territorial enforcement of its embargo on European firms. It fined a French bank $9 billion for trade with Cuba. So again since the market was small and the risks and costs high this was a barrier to European companies.

There is no doubt that part of the reason for the embargo was to make life miserable for the Cuban people in the hope this would cause them to overthrow the Castro dictatorship.

 

[Segnosaur]

There were considerable barriers, specific paperwork, end use monitoring all of which makes it expensive to sell into Cuba. The consequence being that it was not cost effective to organise this for a small market, and the costs for a Cuban purchaser would be considerably greater than e.g. the costs of a Puerto Rican purchaser. Yes in theory there was no absolute ban, just barriers that effectively prevented commercial trade.

The US has a long track record of extra-territorial enforcement of its embargo on European firms. It fined a French bank $9 billion for trade with Cuba. So again since the market was small and the risks and costs high this was a barrier to European companies.

Actually, if its the case I'm thinking of:
- The fine was not just for dealing with Cuba, but also for dealing with Sudan and Iran
- The other issue was not just that the bank was dealing with Cuba/Sudan/Iran, but it was doing so by using the American financial system, while at the same time altering records to strip out incriminating information.

Had the bank simply engaged in European-Cuban interactions without using the U.S. as a middle man it would not have been fined.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-sentencing-idUSKBN0NM41K20150501

There is no doubt that part of the reason for the embargo was to make life miserable for the Cuban people in the hope this would cause them to overthrow the Castro dictatorship.

It also would have had the secondary benefit of starving the country of funds that it could then use to finance other revolutions.

Sometimes embargos work (for example, it got Iran to deal more seriously over its nuclear issue). Sometimes opening up trade might make more sense (e.g. trade with China).

 

[Segnosaur]

Go back and look at my previous post.

In it I posted an article from Politifact (a source that is generally seen as reputable... i.e. not some right-wing hack site), that quoted a University Professor (i.e. someone with some academic credentials, not some politician or right-wing gas bag) who had actually spent many months in Cuba examining their health care system. (i.e. someone who actually had relevant experience).

Yes I know and it said nothing about forced abortions or women being put under house arrest for being pregnant. The closest thing was that when pregnant women develop complications they are required to stay in a maternity ward for constant monitoring, it doesn't say which complications though.

No it doesn't. But the fact that women are required to stay at some facility for monitoring can distort figures regarding mortality deaths, and its not something that is done in western countries. You could argue that its the "best thing" to do that, but it says nothing about the quality of health care.

And yes, I used some poetic license when I talked about it being "house arrest". But the point is its a restriction in the freedom of pregnant women that is contributing to lowered infant mortality, not the quality of health care. Heck, if the U.S. (or Canada, where I'm from) decided to immediately lock up pregnant women in jail for the next 9 months until the baby is born, we'd solve a lot of health problems... low birth weight due to smoking (which can lead to complications), fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. But that wouldn't make the overall quality of health care any better.

And that some women who develop pregnancy complications are being "pressured" to have an abortion, but it again doesn't say which complications and what this "pressure" exactly consists of. It's certainly no evidence for forced abortion (abortion against the will of the woman),

You're right... it doesn't say what the "pressure" is. I'd love to have a sit down with the professor and see just what the government does with a woman who refuses an abortion. But the professor who made the statement obviously thought it was an important enough issue to raise.

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Exclusiva/story?id=3568278&page=1
Although Cuba claims to have low infant mortality rates, doctors have said the data is misleading because when there might be indications of problems with the fetus, there is a widespread practice of forced abortions. ...Yanet Sanchez, a Cuban exile, said she was simply told to submit to an abortion. "They told me I should end the pregnancy," said Sanchez....Other doctors have said that if a child dies a few hours after birth, they don't count it as ever having lived, which ultimately makes infant mortality in Cuba look better than that of the United States.

Don't ********. You've smuggled in claims about "free societies in the Western world" in between your other claims about forced abortions and women put under house arrest for being pregnant.

Claims by the way that are supported by evidence (even if you may not like the poetic license I used in describing the situations).

Maybe your Western supremacy comes so natural to you that it would be "bizarre" to even imagine to consider otherwise

Or, maybe the idea of "western supremacy" comes from the fact that, despite some problems, on average western countries (both in North America and Europe) tend to have much higher standards of living, AND more freedoms.

You seem to think that forced medical supervision in situations which present danger to unborn children is like "so not free, like we do in the Western world". So it only makes sense to ask you about similar situations where the government overrides the parent's consent regarding a medical procedure on children.

Its an irrelevant argument because, even if you can justify the state overriding parental freedoms in various situations, doing so isn't an indication of a superior health care system.

 

[Craig B]

Or, maybe the idea of "western supremacy" comes from the fact that, despite some problems, on average western countries (both in North America and Europe) tend to have much higher standards of living, AND more freedoms.

Its an irrelevant argument because, even if you can justify the state overriding parental freedoms in various situations, doing so isn't an indication of a superior health care system.

But it may result in better outcomes of health conditions. Enforced vaccination can or could result in the elimiation of some infectious diseases. Between 1853 and 1898 there was obligatory smallpox vaccination in the U.K. I imagine that this saved very many lives, but compulsory vaccination is now considered unethical, and rightly so.

Not all people in different countries with a given level of material living standards enjoy the same access to health care. It is suggested that Cuba performs "better" than would be expected from the general level of wealth attained by its citizens, while in the advanced European countries the USA is regarded with a degree of dismay on account of the lack of a free health service. So it is believed to perform "worse" than one might expect from personal income levels. Now, are these impressions true? In Cuba there is virtually no free press or independent political pressure groups, so any information flattering to the regime is to be treated as suspect. But we really don't know what the impressions of the Cuban people are as regards the health care available to them; including questions of compulsion or exclusion, about which there are few certain or non-controversial details at present.

This "narrative" generated by the experience of ordinary users of the Cuban health service is what I hope will become available soon.

 

[Planigale]

Actually, if its the case I'm thinking of:
- The fine was not just for dealing with Cuba, but also for dealing with Sudan and Iran
- The other issue was not just that the bank was dealing with Cuba/Sudan/Iran, but it was doing so by using the American financial system, while at the same time altering records to strip out incriminating information.

Had the bank simply engaged in European-Cuban interactions without using the U.S. as a middle man it would not have been fined.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-sentencing-idUSKBN0NM41K20150501


It also would have had the secondary benefit of starving the country of funds that it could then use to finance other revolutions.

Sometimes embargos work (for example, it got Iran to deal more seriously over its nuclear issue). Sometimes opening up trade might make more sense (e.g. trade with China).

Because of course the US now realises revolutions are bad things. I immediately expect you to be arguing for a move to become part of the the loyalist state of Canada and recognising Queen Elizabeth as your rightful head of state and deposing the that revolutionary autocrat Trump!

 

[Ziggurat]

Because of course the US now realises revolutions are bad things. I immediately expect you to be arguing for a move to become part of the the loyalist state of Canada and recognising Queen Elizabeth as your rightful head of state and deposing the that revolutionary autocrat Trump!

Revolutions are not all the same. Even contemporary ones vary considerably. The American Revolution was a success, but the French revolution was a failure. All communist revolutions are failures.

 

[Ziggurat]

But it may result in better outcomes of health conditions.

Perhaps. But you shouldn't rely on data from the Cuban government to try to prove it.

 

[fuelair]

Castro has passed on ......

What did he pass on? Becoming a cigar roller/seller? Inquiring minds want to know!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

But, Enquirer minds want to "NO!!!!!".

 

[Segnosaur]

But it may result in better outcomes of health conditions.

Which is exactly the point I was making.

Pointing to statistics life expectancy or infant mortality and saying "Look how good Cuba's health care system is" is wrong, if those statistics are distorted by non-medical factors (like forcing pregnant women to live under supervision).

Enforced vaccination can or could result in the elimiation of some infectious diseases. Between 1853 and 1898 there was obligatory smallpox vaccination in the U.K. I imagine that this saved very many lives, but compulsory vaccination is now considered unethical, and rightly so.

There are a couple of issues at play here.

First of all, you have the question about what would be considered "compulsory" or "enforced". For example, are children forced to take vaccinations if they are a requirement to attend public school? After all, you still have the option of home or private schooling.

You also have certain tradeoffs... people may be willing to accept a minor medical procedure like a vaccination (even if they see it as interfering with their freedoms) due to the limited commitments required. However, people would be less likely to accept something more significant, like confinement for extended periods of time.

But we really don't know what the impressions of the Cuban people are as regards the health care available to them; including questions of compulsion or exclusion, about which there are few certain or non-controversial details at present.

Well there was an independent survey which shows that most cubans are satisfied with their medical system. The problem is, without freedom of the press, Cubans don't really have much to compare their system to. (And, it should be noted that wile 2/3s of cubans are satisfied with their health care, that is less than the number of Americans and Canadians satisfied with their health care system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...648b95a6488_story.html?utm_term=.2c1bbffef0a7

The other issue is that for the majority of people, a substandard health care system will probably seem quite fine. Most people go decades of their life needing little more than an occasional band-aid or aspirin, and this is probably what the Cuban system excels at. More advanced treatments (e.g. MRIs, advanced cancer treatment procedures, etc.) only affect a small part of the population at any one time, and if you don't need those procedures, you won't involve them in your evaluation of the medical system.

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps. But you shouldn't rely on data from the Cuban government to try to prove it.

Did you go to the trouble of reading my post before responding? I wrote

In Cuba there is virtually no free press or independent political pressure groups, so any information flattering to the regime is to be treated as suspect.​

What was the purpose of your comment?

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you go to the trouble of reading my post before responding? I wrote

In Cuba there is virtually no free press or independent political pressure groups, so any information flattering to the regime is to be treated as suspect.​

What was the purpose of your comment?

Further emphasis. Read "you" as the generic "one".

 

[caveman1917]

No it doesn't. But the fact that women are required to stay at some facility for monitoring can distort figures regarding mortality deaths, and its not something that is done in western countries. You could argue that its the "best thing" to do that, but it says nothing about the quality of health care.

And yes, I used some poetic license when I talked about it being "house arrest". But the point is its a restriction in the freedom of pregnant women that is contributing to lowered infant mortality, not the quality of health care. Heck, if the U.S. (or Canada, where I'm from) decided to immediately lock up pregnant women in jail for the next 9 months until the baby is born, we'd solve a lot of health problems... low birth weight due to smoking (which can lead to complications), fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. But that wouldn't make the overall quality of health care any better.

Think of the best hospital possible. Suppose you have a country with only that hospital, which is only accessible to the family of the ruler, nobody else hence having any access to any sort of healthcare. Would you consider that country to have "better quality health care" than a country with average hospitals accessible to all?

Besides, interesting how this discussion has gone from "hospitals are literally falling apart with a single dirty toilet each" to "commie dictatorships' numbers should not be trusted" to "maybe infant mortality rate is not a good measure of quality of health care after all".

You're right... it doesn't say what the "pressure" is. I'd love to have a sit down with the professor and see just what the government does with a woman who refuses an abortion.

Great, let us know the answer. Until then, pressure is pressure and not forced abortion.

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Exclusiva/story?id=3568278&page=1
Although Cuba claims to have low infant mortality rates, doctors have said the data is misleading because when there might be indications of problems with the fetus, there is a widespread practice of forced abortions. ...Yanet Sanchez, a Cuban exile, said she was simply told to submit to an abortion. "They told me I should end the pregnancy," said Sanchez....Other doctors have said that if a child dies a few hours after birth, they don't count it as ever having lived, which ultimately makes infant mortality in Cuba look better than that of the United States.

First-person-narrative unverifiable claims. Yes, we know, and the hospitals are literally falling apart as well. One wonders how they manage all those forced abortions without even having lining on the hospital beds.

Claims by the way that are supported by evidence (even if you may not like the poetic license I used in describing the situations).

Then why not provide such evidence?

Or, maybe the idea of "western supremacy" comes from the fact that, despite some problems, on average western countries (both in North America and Europe) tend to have much higher standards of living

I couldn't care less about your average. Western supremacy is simply Western supremacy, the notion that your Western "nations" are the norm against which everything else must be measured and valued. It is quite fragile as well, seeing the need to start propagandizing its superiority in every discussion on something which isn't Western.

, AND more freedoms.

Yet still overriding consent for medical intervention, such as procedures with the freedom gang's magic wellness-sticks.

Its an irrelevant argument because, even if you can justify the state overriding parental freedoms in various situations, doing so isn't an indication of a superior health care system.

Just like the state overriding peoples' freedom to be treated in that super-duper hospital, so as to reserve it for the ruler's family, isn't an indication of an inferior health system?

 

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

RIP Castro. You've done well given the circumstances.