To: TonyInOhio
Medical Reporter Performs Surgery in Iraq NEW YORK (AP) - While reporting on a U.S. Navy medical team in Iraq on Thursday, CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta unexpectedly became part of the story when asked to perform emergency brain surgery. The 2-year-old Iraqi boy did not survive. As the only neurosurgeon available to treat a patient with a severe brain injury, Gupta said it was his moral duty to help. But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist.
To: Carolina
But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist.
Just when I think nothing the press prints will surprise me, they prove me wrong.
2,963 posted on
04/03/2003 1:21:34 PM PST by
Green
To: Carolina
questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist.
how about the blurring of the roles between journalist and human being. peawit moron ignorant air-waster.
Bye y'all I'm off to church history class, Keep up the good work.
2,966 posted on
04/03/2003 1:22:43 PM PST by
aloysius89
(fascite magnopere aut iti domun)
To: Carolina
As the only neurosurgeon available to treat a patient with a severe brain injury, Gupta said it was his moral duty to help. But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist. The only thing it blurred was the idiocy of "journalists" who think nothing of reporting opinion as fact but think it's horrible that a doctor would try to save a life.
To: Carolina
I've been gone about an hour and a half; did I miss anything?
To: Carolina
But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist. That may be the stupidest thing I have ever read.
2,977 posted on
04/03/2003 1:27:05 PM PST by
Straight Vermonter
(http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
To: Carolina
As the only neurosurgeon available to treat a patient with a severe brain injury, Gupta said it was his moral duty to help. But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist. What this really says is: journalistic ethics do not permit a journalist to distinguish between what is or is not moral. In this case, apparently "ethics" state that a journalist MUST NOT act to save a life.
This is Bullsh*t, of course.
3,011 posted on
04/03/2003 1:36:55 PM PST by
r9etb
To: Carolina
But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist. Oh, for God's sake, the kid was dying! There should be no questions about the reporter's actions, period. AP oughta be ashamed of themselves. Geez.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson