Life Expectancy Drops for Some U.S. Women

Filed under: Feature, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on April 22, 2008 @ 8:33 pm CEST

The Washington Post reports that ‘[f]or the first time since the Spanish influenza of 1918, life expectancy is falling for a significant number of American women.’ ‘ In nearly 1,000 counties that together are home to about 12 percent of the nation’s women,’ the article goes on to say, ‘life expectancy is now shorter than it was in the early 1980s, according to a study published today.’

The downward trend is evident in places in the Deep South, Appalachia, the lower Midwest and in one county in Maine. It is not limited to one race or ethnicity but it is more common in rural and low-income areas. The most dramatic change occurred in two areas in southwestern Virginia (Radford City and Pulaski County), where women’s life expectancy has decreased by more than five years since 1983.

The trend appears to be driven by increases in death from diabetes, lung cancer, emphysema and kidney failure. It reflects the long-term consequences of smoking, a habit that women took up in large numbers decades after men did, and the slowing of the historic decline in heart disease deaths.

It may also represent the leading edge of the obesity epidemic. If so, women’s life expectancy could decline broadly across the United States in coming years, ending a nearly unbroken rise that dates to the mid-1800s.

I think that a lot can be explained as follows: for a long time, men were the ones who drank and smoked. We were the ones who lived like that, women didn’t. Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that women didn’t work for centuries; they all worked at home. Nowadays, however, women have jobs like men have. Jobs create stress. Stress caused one to die early / earlier.

So to a degree it’s logical. But we also have to keep in mind that, although the process may be natural to a degree, life expectancy is a good indicator of a country’s wealth and progress. Money may not buy you love and happiness, but it does most certainly enable you to live a longer and more healthy life.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 Chris

April 22, 2008 @ 9:53 pm CEST

“Money may not buy you love and happiness, but it does most certainly enable you to live a longer and more healthy life.”

Hmmm and this case money may have bought a shorter life (via cigarettes)

2 PatHMV

April 22, 2008 @ 11:12 pm CEST

That study says something negative about the United States, and therefore I refuse to believe it…

(sorry, just trying to live down to expectations…)

3 C Stanley

April 22, 2008 @ 11:38 pm CEST

LOL, I agree, Pat, the study must be flawed.

4 Jason

April 22, 2008 @ 11:43 pm CEST

There must be other factors that merely wealth and prosperity that affect life expectancy. Otherwise, there would appear to be no reason by Greece and Italy finish well ahead of the Netherlands. Also, if life expectancy was a valid measurement of wealth and prosperity, it would be weird that impoverished Puerto Rico and Guam finished ahead of much richer mainland USA.

In truth, life expectancy results from a highly complex mixture of variables, including things like culture, diet, and lifestyle choices that are partially or even completely independent of wealth and prosperity. The study specifically notes tobacco use and obesity as causal factors. Notably, these tend to be higher among the poor than among the rich, but they are not CAUSED by lack of wealth.

Of course, if the only purpose was to say "America isn’t perfect, nyah, nyah, nyah", you can rest assured that we already knew that and, UNBELIEVABLY we even talk about it amongst ourselves from time to time. But since it is Tuesday, it may just be time for our weekly reminder by Europeans that they are better than us in every possible way. :rolleyes:

5 Michael van der Galien

April 23, 2008 @ 11:01 am CEST

Netherlands: Jason, how about food? In the Netherlands, we eat reasonably fatty and big meals (because our ancestors all worked hard on the fields, etc.). Whereas in Italy and Greece people eat a lot of fish and vegetables.