And we never seem to discuss that the first thing that’s cut when budgets are tight is research. And like defense, if the U.S. doesn’t do it (sadly) no one will. I hope we’re all happy with the state of today’s medicine because not only are we regulating ourselves to stasis (trying to avoid a few more deaths by testing regimes that restrict the ability the wealthy to suffer and spend their own money to try to live another three miserable months – and sometimes extend the science) but when there is no profit there will be no research. The research that still exists in these other countries is largely driven by the opportunity to sell in the U.S. When that opportunity to make a ROI on significant risk evaporates, so will those companies.

If we don’t shackle the medical profession, we’ll look back at today in 100 years the same way we look back at leaches and worse – primitive medicine (if not snake oil) at its best.

“Neonatal Mortality Rate: Number of deaths during the first 28 completed days of life per 1,000 live births in a given year or period.”

And they have the same definition of “live birth” you give. So a delivered fetus that requires resuscitation is not a live birth. And if it’s not a “live birth” then it doesn’t count for the statistics. So if a doctor declares a vastly-premature or stillborn infant “nonviable” and refuses to provide supporting treatment, that doesn’t count as infant mortality. But if the doctor does provide treatment and the baby dies anyway, then it does count.

A live birth occurs when a fetus, whatever its gestational age, exits the maternal body and subsequently shows any sign of life, such as voluntary movement, heartbeat, or pulsation of the umbilical cord, for however brief a time and regardless of whether the umbilical cord or placenta are intact. (Wikipedia)

If low birth weight babies aren’t being counted in a nation’s statistics, it is at odds with this definition. I’d love to see a link to a definitive source.