Abstract
AbstractIt is a positive indicator that human life expectancies calculated from birth have been increasing. The current standards for counting life-years, however, assume social desirability and exclude all prenatal deaths. These assumptions mask low life-year deaths and obscure results of medical and environmental interventions, thus falsely indicating higher life expectancies. This case study investigates 1930 to 2016 using CDC and World Bank data for the U.S. It is evident, published U.S. life expectancies are greatly exaggerated and what would have been short-lived Americans are disproportionately labeled as socially-undesirable and ignored when counting life years, thus presenting an overly-optimistic view of U.S. health. A comprehensive global investigation is needed, and a refinement of life expectancy calculations should be introduced, which does not bias results by only counting life expectancy from the time of live birth.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference30 articles.
1. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015
2. Roser M , Ortiz-Ospina E , Ritchie H. Life Expectancy. Our World in Data [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 May 7]; Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
3. National Vital Statistics Reports;US Department Of Health And Human Services,2015
4. CDC. CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 May 6]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
5. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献