Listening to just the Euro OBs seems no better or worse to me than just listening to the US OBs. I was initially going to suggest that you also speak with US OBs, but then realized that it's not really possible to just decide to do it one morning without purchasing expensive tickets, etc. But I do hope that you'll agree that the pitfalls of one-sidedness apply to both sides.
Regarding standardization, it does not seem to me to obviate the problem of comparison between unequals in this case. I know you are familiar with these concepts since you referenced them, but I will provide them for other readers; here are the WHO definitions relevant to neonatal mortality:
"The neonatal period commences at birth and ends 28 completed days after birth.
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born."
The key is that live birth counts irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy. Viability begins around 23 weeks with extraordinary measures (give or take, depending on how aggressive your care may be). Depending on your approach, aggressive care may improve such statistics (if the care is aggressive only after live birth), or worsen such statistics (if aggressive care also occurs prior to live birth and includes things such as induction).
So (a) I think it's actually quite a muddled issue, and (b) I could see aggressive care pushing these stats either way, depending on the timing and methodology of care. It's a legitimate issue that well-meaning people are interested in (in contrast to those who feel that family planning is a step away from forced abortions, who are simply ideologues).
I was initially going to suggest that you also speak with US OBs, but then realized that it's not really possible to just decide to do it one morning without purchasing expensive tickets, etc.
I live in the US. I meant to point out that I had talked with euro and UK OBs in addition what I know from living here. More in my other comment.
Regarding standardization, it does not seem to me to obviate the problem of comparison between unequals in this case. I know you are familiar with these concepts since you referenced them, but I will provide them for other readers; here are the WHO definitions relevant to neonatal mortality:
"The neonatal period commences at birth and ends 28 completed days after birth.
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born."
The key is that live birth counts irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy. Viability begins around 23 weeks with extraordinary measures (give or take, depending on how aggressive your care may be). Depending on your approach, aggressive care may improve such statistics (if the care is aggressive only after live birth), or worsen such statistics (if aggressive care also occurs prior to live birth and includes things such as induction).
So (a) I think it's actually quite a muddled issue, and (b) I could see aggressive care pushing these stats either way, depending on the timing and methodology of care. It's a legitimate issue that well-meaning people are interested in (in contrast to those who feel that family planning is a step away from forced abortions, who are simply ideologues).