Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-08-04 14:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
The doctor is out.
Doctors (and teachers, and scientists, and businessmen, and anyone with a bit of money...) are fleeing Iraq, leaving the country's medical system in disarray, at a time when it is needed most. Then again, considering the targeting of medical establishments by both U.S. and insurgents, the heavyhanded, threatening, and sometimes violent intimidation of doctors by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers *AND* by the insurgents, I don't blame them. I just don't know who is going to replace them.

Meanwhile, a new study by Iraq Body Count that used authoritative media accounts to determine the nature of Iraqi civilian casualties reached the following conclusions:

- Women and children have accounted for almost 20% of civilian deaths in Iraq.

- US-led forces killed 37% of the civilian victims.

- The insurgency and foriegn terrorists have killed 9% of civilian victims.

- Increased lawlessness and criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

- 70% of civilian casualties have occurred post-invasion, with the number of civilians killed in the second year of the occupation nearly twice the amount killed in the first year.

This also tends to support my ballpark estimate of about 175,000 dead Iraqi civilians to date, based on the Lancet study, and a presumption that there was a corollary between increased fatalities for coalition soldiers over the last year and increased fatalities for Iraqi civilians over the last year. There clearly is a causal relationship.

Professor John Sloboda, one of the report's authors, says that "34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion," but that isn't a factually correct statement.

What he should have said is that approximately 34 ordinary Iraqis THAT WE KNOW OF meet violent deaths everyday, with many additional violent deaths that routinely go unreported. In addition, there is an even larger, undisclosed death toll for ordinary Iraqis who die everyday due to increased rates of disease, bad water, bad sanitation, increased risk of fatal accidents (such as is caused by things like unexploded ordinance), inadequate medical treatment, increased levels of infant mortality, spotty electricity and phone service, and many other potentially avoidable health concerns which should not be fatal under normal circumstances, but are under occupation. As a result of the invasion and its aftermath, statistical rates of death for Iraqis have increased sharply across the board, simply because the infrastructure for providing adequate medical attention to the Iraqi people does not exist anymore.

The doctors are leaving, the ambulances -- when you can reach one by phone -- are waiting in line at the security checkpoint, but the patient is dead-on-arrival.


(47 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-05 01:00 am UTC (link)
The insurgency and foriegn terrorists have killed 9% of civilian victims.

Bullshit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 03:05 am UTC (link)
First off, what that 9% represents is approximately 2,800 Iraqi civilians. The study makes no attempt to tally those Iraqis who are not civilians. Again, those approximately 2,800 Iraqis who died reflect only the media reports of civilians being killed. Like the reported civilian casualties by U.S. troops, the actual figures are no doubt higher.

Secondly, there are going to be some civilian deaths from criminality that those creating the report could not show as a murder caused by the insurgency, but certainly the insurgency has been known to take part in criminal behavior in order to fund itself. The figures for Iraqis who die due to criminal behavior related to the insurgency is unknown, for obvious reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]paul
2005-08-05 01:13 am UTC (link)
Is it me or do those figures add up to 102%?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 01:44 am UTC (link)
"margin of error".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 02:03 am UTC (link)
Rounding up, apparently. That is a pretty silly thing for them to do, however.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:04 am UTC (link)
lol, media.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:06 am UTC (link)
also, not necessarily. it would be mathematically sound (though pragmatically disingenous) to round up if each of those numbers were 19.5%, 36.5%, 8.5% and 35.5%.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Yay, statistics.
[info]mitrian
2005-08-05 02:09 am UTC (link)
You can't just add them. Some of the numbers overlap. These, for example:

- Women and children have accounted for almost 20% of civilian deaths in Iraq.

- US-led forces killed 37% of the civilian victims.


...don't equal 57%. The first 20% would be part of the 37%, not in addition to it.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Yay, statistics.
[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:16 am UTC (link)
damn, that's even better than I did.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Yay, statistics.
[info]paul
2005-08-05 11:32 am UTC (link)
Yes you are totally right, I do apologise. I wasn't paying a great deal of attention it would appear last night. Silly me :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-05 01:25 am UTC (link)
I know that you lean way left on a lot of things, and that you are very opposed to this war. However, until you can find a reliable source for you r comments, you should refrain. I could quote far lower casualty rates from right wing agenda news, the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.

I happen to read the classified casualty reports every day, and I have to tell you that your figures and percentages are way off base. THere is dissention and opposition to the war, and then ther is blind rhetoric.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: this is a nit i must pick
[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 02:24 am UTC (link)
I cited a study done by a NGO and by doctors for one of the most reputable medical journals in the world, and you want to cite what? Right wing agenda news?! Without even a link to indicate what you are citing?

As for the report I cited, they indicate that Iraqi mortuary officials, medics, and Iraqi government officials were the most cited source for the casualty figures, and that these casualty figures were supported by at least one other primary source approximately 75% of the time.

According to Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. military does not do counts of Iraqi civilians who are killed in Iraq, so I can't see how the classified reports that you cite would accurately reflect these figures, unless, of course, Gen. Franks was lying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: this is a nit i must pick
[info]lafinjack
2005-08-05 04:27 am UTC (link)
That's two years ago - they might have started in the interim, though I doubt it since it's bad PR.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: this is a nit i must pick
[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 10:16 am UTC (link)
If they did, I would think that would be a positive step. They should be concerned about how many Iraqis are dying, not just as a result of bullets amd bombs, but as a result of lack of doctors and medicine, or the inability of emergency services to function effectively. It would be wonderful PR if coalition troops could point to a decrease in infant mortality, or to a fleet of ten thousand new ambulances, or to Iraqi hospitals having the best training and equipment possible. Unfortunately, that was one of the first things the U.S. turned over to the Iraqis, and turned their backs on.

If we could, as a country, reengage on these kinds of lifesaving issues to make sure the work that was started will be finished, then perhaps we could win a few more hearts and minds, go considerably further to justify this venture, and save hundreds of lives along the way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: this is a nit i must pick
[info]lafinjack
2005-08-05 02:37 pm UTC (link)
There are a lot of things the military should be doing, but don't do because they are collectively fucked in the head. Appearance is everything. You have no idea how deep this mentality goes. Anything that makes them look even a little bit bad in their warped sense of reality is to be covered up, denied, or whitewashed. Civilian casualties are one of these things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

this is a nit i must pick
[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 01:43 am UTC (link)
spotty phone service is not a health concern.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Speaking as a health service provider
[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 01:57 am UTC (link)
Oh, yes it is- unless you have an alternative comm network.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

speaking as an I don't give a flying fuck what you do for a living
[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:03 am UTC (link)
no, it's not. you will never find "lack of phone service" listed as a reason for people dying in their 30s in the 1500s.

spotty phone service can exacerbate a situation, but it is not in and of itself a medical situation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: speaking as an I don't give a flying fuck what you do for a living
[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 02:06 am UTC (link)
You're still wrong. In countries and neighborhoods where comm networks are important for people to seek emergency medical care, the malfunction of those networks is a health issue- one that can cost lives.

And that is the case whether you fly and fuck or not. Aren't those little bathrooms too cramped, though? :-D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: speaking as an I don't give a flying fuck what you do for a living
[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:15 am UTC (link)
nobody has ever died because their phone went out. yes, not having a phone to call for emergency services can make you more likely to die in an emergency, but that does not make spotty phone service a medical issue. "failed phone line" will never be listed on a toetag.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 02:20 am UTC (link)
Well, we can certainly agree that "failed phone line" is never going to be listed as a physical cause of death.

Perhaps we can also agree that some people have a definition of "health issues" that is wider than "physical causes of death", and that such definitions have validity for some discussions?

"Poor water supply" will also never be listed as a cause of death either, but I can assure you that for many communities, it is a much more important health issue than anything that would ever appear on a toe tag.

Perhaps we can both continue to use our own definitions when applicable, while still recognising that other people's definitions might also have merit in some situations?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:27 am UTC (link)
contaminated water is a medical issue. it contributes directly to sickness and death by supplying the body with toxins and microbes.

including 'spotty phone service' in a list of medical concerns (and electricity, I'm tempted to add) is not of merit in this discussion. the only reason it was added to the list was to make it longer and more impressive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 02:39 am UTC (link)
I mentioned lack of phones, electricity, medicine, and doctors because all of the above have made survivable medical emergencies in Iraq into fatal ones. That's an important thing to point out, especially when the U.S., as an occupying power in another country, has a moral and legal obligation to the Iraqi people.

Maybe "phone didn't work" wasn't on an Iraqi's death certificate, but such a situation could kill you just the same.

So... lack of body armor, lack of up-armored vehicles, and lack of medics have never gotten soldiers killed, right?!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 02:47 am UTC (link)
"phones and electricity" do not belong on the list with "medicine and doctors", unless we're talking about inside a hospital, and in which case why would a phone system have anything to do with anything?

how can spotty electricity kill someone?

lack of body armor, lack of up-armored vehicles, and lack of medics have never gotten soldiers killed, right?!
no. bullets and bombs kill soldiers, and that's speaking as someone whose HMMWV was "armored" with sandbags.

you and a thousand other armchair politicians can "what if" to kingdom come, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has ever died because their phone didn't work.

it's the fact that a medical emergency has to already be occuring for a bad phone line to even contribute to a death that makes me object to listing it. a heart attack or a bullet wound can kill a person independant of the state of phone service, but phone service can not kill a person independant of an actual life-threatening situation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 03:19 am UTC (link)
Not reporting it as a contributary problem would've missed the point.

The biggest cause of Iraqi civilian deaths isn't bombs or bullets. It's that the infrastructure has been destroyed. And it wasn't just destroyed after years of sanctions, but destroyed relative to where it was prior to the invasion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 09:51 am UTC (link)
but you didn't list it as a "contributory problem", you listed it as a "potentially avoidable health concern". all I'm asking is that you call a spade a spade.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 10:25 am UTC (link)
It affects health
no, it doesn't. demonstrate to me how, independant of other factors, a phone line has any effect on a person's health.

those who bleed to death because...
because they were bleeding. Not because they couldn't get to a phone.

I agree with you that the distinction is a useful one
then, as all I'm asking is that he make it, we agree. you can stop commenting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 10:33 am UTC (link)
Good. If you are merely saying "Hey, it would be nice if you had subclassified your list", your point is arguably pedantic, but certainly not incorrect.

You again bring up independence; at no time did he claim that infrastructure was an independent health concern, so that issue is besides the point.

I understand and quite identify with your desire for clarity of classification, but you are allowing that desire to lead you into error. Your original argument that infrastructure is not a health concern is flat-out wrong, though arguments that it is not an independent health concern can certainly be made.

Your entire argument as initially presented is a strawman; you have clearly refuted claims (i.e. claims that telephony is an independent physiological health concern) that were never made.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 10:43 am UTC (link)
you are making assumptions that are not backed up by anything, as well.

my original comment was "spotty phone service is not a health concern", which I thought was easy enough to understand as "spotty phone service is not inherently a health concern and as such is out of place on a list of things which are inherently health concerns"; not "spotty phone service is never a health concern in any situation".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 10:24 am UTC (link)
LOL

Ah. But the problem is that it *can* reasonably be considered a health concern. It affects health, and it concerns those who are interested, including planners, including those who bleed to death because they couldn't get an ambulance, and including their surviving relatives and friends.

I agree with you that the distinction is a useful one, though; but you have shown no substantiation for your vigorous exclusion of non-physiological issues and "situational modifiers" from a list of "health issues". None.

Had his wording implied that telephony was a physiological issue, I'd be on your side. As it is, you don't really have a point, thus far. He called it a "potentially avoidable health concern"; and it is.

I guess that you can argue that you would have preferred that he had broken his list of health concerns into "physiological" and "non-physiological", or into "diseases" and "infrastructural problems", or into "primary contributors" and "situational modifiers", but I don't really see why your personal preference on such issues of sub-classification would have been key in a post such as this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 10:31 am UTC (link)
I don't really see why your personal preference on such issues of sub-classification would have been key in a post such as this.
I admitted that I was nitpicking at the start of the thread. It's the same as calling a senryu a haiku, when they are demonstrably different.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 10:35 am UTC (link)
My issue is not that you are nitpicking; the problem is that your nitpicking, as initially presented, is *wrong*.

Can we just agree that subclassification would have been nice?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 10:43 am UTC (link)
can we agree that you put words in my mouth when you decided to pick my pick?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-05 11:25 am UTC (link)
No mas. I am getting all of this crap in my email, and I'm sick of it. I'm not going to allow you to rant on endlessly picking nits, unless you have anything illuminating to say.

This is not the room for an argument. This is abuse, dipshit. You want the room down the hall and to the left. Ok? Buhbye!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 11:07 pm UTC (link)
you da boss, mang.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-06 01:20 am UTC (link)
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that you're not welcome to comment on other posts. I know you love hunting out a good argument, but at a certain point I have to say enough, especially when I get notified by email on all of these comments.

Please try to avoid dead horse flogging in the future, as it will drive me up the frickin' wall. Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-06 01:22 am UTC (link)
no problem, dude, I totally understand.

and, sorry about that. I was just feeling very argumentative last night.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-07 01:21 am UTC (link)
Seen and understood. Cheers!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 02:40 am UTC (link)
I'm seriously struggling to understand here.

Your opposition is on the basis that:
(1) poor basic services are not a pathological contributor to physical disease, and as such any contribution that they make to the success or failure of health care initiatives can be discarded;
(2) you suspect the motives of the writer for including them?

Are you willing to discard the effect of the presence or absence of basic services on health care regardless of effect? In other words, if you were shown that the failure of a community's communication system had a measurable and significant effect on the number of deaths in that community, would you still dismiss it?

Or is your position based on your view that the number of deaths attributable (indirectly, of course) to the failure of communication networks must be insignificant?

Do you realise that every single life saved by an ambulance is saved also by the communication network of the community?

If lives were being lost due to the incompetence of ambulance technicians, would that also not be a health issue because you can't put it on a toe tag?

I think there's something about your point I'm not getting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 03:03 am UTC (link)
I can see that.

1) see above.
2) yes.

Are you willing to discard...
no. in fact, I think I provisod that phone service can exacerbate a life threatening situation.

Or is your position based on ...
no.

Do you realise that...
yes.

If lives were being lost due to...
that is correct.

I think there's something about your point I'm not getting
I think a good place to start is that you've taken "put it on a toe tag" as my sole criteron for determining whether something is a medical issue, when that's not the case.

further ampn: see above comment to OP.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]walkingshark
2005-08-05 05:03 am UTC (link)
Fuck off, troll.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 05:04 am UTC (link)
lol k noob

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 09:45 am UTC (link)
Issues capable of exacerbating life threatening situations so as to result in otherwise avoidable loss of life do need to be considered by health authorities, and are often considered health issues. These include but are not limited to basic services, community education, and economic factors. In fact, the entire discipline of public health entails a considerable focus on such issues that are not primarily physiological.

The reason that I've taken your toetag comment as being your sole criterion for determining whether an issue is a health issue is that you have given no other.

My problem is not your definition of a "health issue" per se, but rather your odd, eccentric, and seeminly baseless insistence that your murky definition is the only valid one.

Can you clear this up for us in a polite and profanity-free manner? Profanity and disrespect only makes you look immature, and you do seem capable of doing better.

Cheers...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 09:48 am UTC (link)
a health issue can cause health problems independant of other contributing factors.
dirty water will make you unhealthy whether you get shot or not.
overexposure to sun will make you unhealthy whether you get shot or not.
falling a thousand feet into a boulder-filled ravine will make you unhealthy whether you get shot, either before or after, or not.

having spotty phone service will never make you unhealthy.

if it won't -- or can't -- in and of itself cause problems, it's not a health issue; it's a situational modifier.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 09:55 am UTC (link)
You have shown no valid basis for insisting on the exclusion of situational modifiers, and none for excluding them from a consideration of health issues.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nova_starr
2005-08-05 10:26 am UTC (link)
correctness is its own justification.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]guttaperk
2005-08-05 10:27 am UTC (link)
But you have not shown that you are correct.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(47 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…