ShareThis Page

Media Monday

| Monday, Aug. 27, 2007

On last Wednesday's "Good Morning America," co-host Chris Cuomo completely glossed over the health care implications of a Canadian mother forced to give birth to identical quadruplets in the United States.

According to Cuomo, Karen Jepp and her husband had to travel 300 miles from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to Montana on Aug. 16 because "every neonatal unit in their country was too crowded to handle four preemie births."

Apparently, it didn't occur to Cuomo to wonder why all the hospitals in Canada, a nation with universal health care, were full. During a subsequent "exclusive" interview with Jepp and her husband J.P., Cuomo continued with this unquestioning explanation:

"Toward the very end, it gets even more complicated. ... You know, they're not ready for them at the hospital. Your doctors have to make calls. You have to fly 300 miles to have them."

In fact, The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, reported that Canada's "stretched" national health-care system means "expectant mothers going into labor before 32 weeks gestation (when babies need the highest level of neonatal intensive care) are often sent by air ambulance to hospitals in Washington, Montana, Michigan and New York."

-- Brent Baker, Media Research Center

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me