The Sinking MV Sweol in South Korea

Recently I read a couple articles on CNN and The Huffington Post about the South Korean ferry ship that sunk last week. The MV Sewol was en route to Jeju from Incheon carrying 476 people, a majority of which were secondary school students.

 

When the first distresses call was sent, fishing boats and commercial vessels arrived to help, followed by the Korean Coast Guard, ROK Navy Ships and helicopters. Many other groups aided in the rescue effort including the South Korean government, the United States Navy, civilian groups and individuals.

 

Although there was tremendous effort to help rescue the people on board, there were 108 deaths and 194 people still remain missing. Jethro Mullen, Kyung Lah and Will Ripley from CNNwrote an article about the heartbreaking story entitled, “Diver on sunken South Korean ferry: ‘We can’t even face the families.”

 

This article details the grim story of the lessening hope and optimism regarding the 194 people still missing from the wreckage. Divers have been working for days searching the vessel for anyone still trapped inside, alive. There were 174 lucky survivors who were rescued the day the ship sank but since that day there have been no more survivors found.

 

Bard Yoon, a rescue diver to the ship, spoke to interviewers about his heartache when trying to finding rescuers in the ship wreck. He was optimistic about finding people still alive, trapped in the vessel, but each and every day that hope dwindled as they pulled up deceased victims.

 

Although the wreckage seems at first to be an accident, the South Korean President Park Geun-hye isn’t convinced. Ralph Ellis, KJ Kwon and Greg Botelho from CNN went more into depth about this controversy in their article, “South Korean President: Actions of sunken ferry crew ‘akin to murder’.”

 

The original belief was that many people couldn’t reach lifeboats because the ship tilted so quickly that it left many of them unable to move. There was a transcript released from the conversation between a crew member and a Vessel Traffic Service center that detailed what happened.

 

A crew member was quoted talking about how how the ship was sinking and rolling. He stressed the difficulty the passengers faced when trying to evacuate and move around. The ship was about to capsize when the crew member alerted the coast guard.

 

This exchange gave authorities a deeper looking into why more people may have not been able to escape the ship in time. But another transcript shows that the captain of the ship delayed the evacuation and abandoned his ship and survived. The Jindo Vessel Traffic Service believed that it was the captains decision to make people escape since the coast guard doesn’t know the situation.

 

After this the captain, Captain Lee Joon Seok, tried to defend his choices by claiming that he delayed evacuation because it was a fairly fast current area, and the water temperature was cold. He also complained that the rescue ship did not come, and there were no fishing boats or supporting ships around to help at that time.

 

“If a boat is sinking why would you not urge your passengers to evacuate, regardless of the water conditions,” John Clark, an experienced fisherman and lifetime boat owner, stated. “I’m shocked that someone who steers boats for a living would make this choice.”

 

Despite all his lobbying, Captain Lee has been charged with abandoning his boat, negligence, causing bodily injury, not seeking rescue from other ships and violating “seamen’s law.” Prosecutor Lee Bong-Chang worked to bring about this result and went into detail about the basis for these crimes that could result in five years to life in prison.

 

The prosecutorwas quoted, talking about his role in the trial. He helped charge Captain Lee with “causing the Sewol ship to sink by failing to slow down while sailing the narrow route and making (a) turn excessively.” The prosecutor also helped to charge Captain Lee with “failing to do the right thing to guide the passengers to escape and thereby leading to their death or injury.”

 

The most serious of these crimes was abandoning his boat and being rescued before all personnel were off the boat. This is highly illegal and violated the moral obligation for a captain to stay with his ship until everyone is rescued.

 

Maritime law attorney Jack Hickey talked about his knowledge of the internationally recognized rule that a captain must stay on the vessel. He stressed the importance of this rule because it makes sure that the captain is responsible for his ship and the passengers on board.

 

The captain is not the only one who has be charged with crimes however. The captain was not in the steering room when the accident took place, the third mate was. The accident occurred while the third mate was steering, so she, identified as Park, is also being charged with negligence and causing injuries leading to deaths. The technician onboard, Cho, is facing the same charges.

 

When reviewing the actions of the captain and the crew, it is obvious that there was a mistake made and there may not have been a way to fix it, but there were opportunities to lessen the casualties and disaster. But after reading an article on the Huffington Post, “Company That Owned Doomed South Korean Ferry Has Checkered Past,” it is clear that the captain and crew were not the only ones to blame.

 

Yoo Byung-un, the founder of Chonghaejin Marine Co, the company which built the ferry, has been in a whirlwind of controversy for years. Yoo was convicted for fraud then went bankrupt after he spent four years in jail.

 

All of this information shows that there may have been a conspiracy in place regarding the sinking of the MV Sewol. President Park Geun-hye may have been right in her skepticism of the true origins of this disaster.

 

First off the captain was mysteriously not in the steering room when the accident happened and could not explain why he left. This seems like more than just a coincidence.

 

Secondly, there was a delayed reaction from the crew and the passengers were not urged to leave until it was too late. This begs the question of what the crew and captain were waiting for. Why was evacuating the ferry later a better choice in their eyes?

 

Lastly, the choice in ship companies was very questionable and confusing. It isn’t typical to choose a company that has been wrapped up in controversy for years. Why would this particular company be chosen if there are so many other option?

 

Overall, there will always be a controversy regarding this “accident” and a question about all the choice made on board. But we do know that there are 194 people still missing, and the groups helping aid in the effort need all the help they can get, to rescue any more survivors.

FDA Approving Painkiller Overdose Antidote

Recently I read an article on the Wall Street Journal entitled, FDA Approves Injection to Counteract Painkiller Overdose: Evzio is a Hand-Held Injector Meant for Use by Consumers by Thomas M. Burton. This article detailed the new law approved by the FDA that allowed an injection to be sold that would help counteract an overdoes of narcotic painkillers.

Before this new law, the drug used to counteract the overdose was called naloxone and was used by various different medical workers including paramedics. The new drug used is called Evzio and was created by Kaleo Inc. It uses the same drugs as naloxone but in a simpler way so that everyone can use it, which includes a walkthrough recording instructing people how to use in properly.

The reason that the FDA approved this measure was in hopes to stop future casualties by giving people the opportunity to step in and help save people who have overdosed. Another reason many think the FDA introduced this method was to combat the criticism they got for approving painkillers that are subject to overdosing.

The FDA Commissioner, Margaret A. Hamburg stated, “today’s approval of Evzio provides an important new tool in our arsenal to more effectively combat the devastating effects of opioid overdose, which is one part of our comprehensive work to support opioid safety.”

Some believe that this new drug will in fact help prevent deaths from overdose since in 2005 there were 22,400 drug overdose deaths, and 38.2% of them were related to painkillers. Dr. Andrew Kolodny, president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing is someone who agrees with the FDA’s decision and thinks it will reduce the amount of painkiller-linked casualties.  

Kolodny said, “making an overdose antidote more available in the midst of an overdose epidemic is a no-brainer. It will save lives.”

 USA Today also ran a story about the same instance entitled, “FDA approves heroin/painkiller overdose antidote.” This article follows the same information given in the Wall Street Journal article but also brings in various experts to talk about the subject, like Eric Strain, the director of the John Hopkins Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and Research.

Strain quoted, “There are risks and benefits to all medications, [but] in the big scheme of things, this is probably a valuable tool, especially if it’s used and provided in the context of improving access to treatment.”

The chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at George Washington University, Robert Shesser, agreed with Strain. Shesser added that it is hard and almost impossible to stop people from doing drugs, so it is a better idea to create an environment and situation where they do it safer and have access to an antidote if there is an overdose. 

After talking to various students at CU Boulder I found that their opinions matched those of the experts. The students thought that if the FDA wanted to stop drug use it would be an ongoing battle forever, but if they want to limit the number of casualties then they must help people find safer ways to do drugs. This may even bring the amount of drug use down and combat the drug war better than any other attempts.

Anastasia Mayhew stated, “the FDA was smart in introducing this antidote, if people start to realize that they have to carry it around just to make sure they don’t die they may rethink using drugs all together. But if that doesn’t work they might at least not die of an overdose.”

Edward Lee Elmore and his escape of Death Row

Today I read an article on CNN detailing the case of Edward Lee Elmore’s conviction.  A now fifty-three year old man from South Carolina, Elmore was convicted of a rape and murder.  He was on death row for thirty years before his lawyers and an investigator Diana Holt proved him innocent.  His case was an example of “innocence is not enough” in some trials.

 

The rape and murder victim was Dorothy Edwards, a wealthy widow living in Greenwood, South Carolina.  She was found dead and bloody by her neighbor and councilman Jimmy Holloway.  Very quickly Elmore was convicted of he crime based on a thumbprint on Edward’s back doorknob.

 

Elmore’s lawyers have been working tirelessly to try and prove Elmore’s innocence.  He understands that if he ever stops working or trying in this case, his client will die.  “If I throw in the towel, a client dies.  If I stop working, they stop breathing,”  Holt said, “Sometimes, I am the first person who ever stuck by them or treated them with respect.”

 

The lawyers see the gaps in evidence in the case and the overwhelming question about Elmore’s true role in the crime.  His lawyers claim, “law enforcement planted evidence and prosecutors manipulated facts to cast Elmore as the only suspect in the 1982 murder of 75-year-old Dorothy Edwards.”

 

Another investigator that seems Elmore’s case as “innocence not being enough in trial” is Diana Holt.  She has been following the case since 1993 and believes that since Elmore has a history of mental illness that the court is writing him off as guilty without enough evidence.  Her role in the case helped bring Elmore justice and prove his innocence.

 

Holt was very qualified and proved to be an asset to the case.  She had a rougher childhood involving armed robbery, jail, and abusive relationships.  But she turned her life around when she joined law school at the Southwest Texas State University.  She found that the forensic evidence that the prosecution had over Elmore was unimportant after looking at the other facts and evidence.  This led her to believe Elmore’s innocence and eventually free him from death row.

This case is a perfect example of how there are instances where circumstantial evidence leads to conviction.  Even though Elmore did not convict the crime or have a mass of evidence against him he still took on the guilty role.  This is another case where there isn’t enough time or energy to find the truth, so the easiest option is chosen. 

Belgium’s Euthanasia Law Controversy

Today I read an article on CNN titled Belgium: Lawmakers vote for children’s ‘right to die’ euthanasia law (CNN Belgium Euthenasia Law). This article detailed the issues surrounding children with terminal illnesses in pain and the debate on if they should be allowed to request euthanasia or not.  This would open the door to many different issues like if the child were making this choice for his/her parents or themselves, if the parents are forcing the child to do this and whether or not a child is mature enough to make this decision.

 

This bill is widely supported by the citizens of Belgium and was passed this week by Parliament (CNN Belgium Euthenasia Support).  Many believe that children should be able to choose to end their lives because they are the only ones truly understanding their own pain and suffering.  But the opposition to the bill begs Parliament to wait and think more about the ramifications and effects of a bill like this.

 

Linda van Roy from Belgium, who supports this bill, spoke in this article about her child that is terminally ill. She feels like her child isn’t really living since she is under so many drugs and anesthetics.  Roy wants to make a law that will allow children to ask for euthanasia if they are in immense pain with no prospect of living a full life.  She believes that as sad as it may be her child is suffering and euthanasia is just speeding up the inevitable.

 

If Belgium makes this new law there could be many different controversies that arise.  For one, the Netherlands made euthanasia legal for a child with parents consent.  But after this law was made, only five children chose this route.  Which begs the question, would it be worth it to create this law along with all the controversy and conflict attached if no one would chose the option of euthanasia?

 

Isabella Savavich also spoke in the article.  She has a illness that reduces her life expectancy, and she can’t walk, eat or sleep, but she can think for herself.  When asked by her mother if she would chose euthanasia, she said no.  This adds to the question of whether or not this law is useful and needed.  Her mom believes that to help terminally ill children and adults, the best way is for the government to provide support for families like hers.

 

After asking my friend Elizabeth Fox about this issue she gave an opinion closer to Savavich’s view point. Fox believes that children are not young enough to make decisions  for themselves. She stated that “children of a young age make rash decisions all the time” which adds to the fact that they should not have to power to chose euthanasia. Fox also stated that parents have their best child’s best interest in heart and if they are in immense pain then the parents can make a decision for them.

 

After reading the article and discussing the issue with my friend. I realized that even though a child could be living a “life-less” life. It is too drastic to choose the path of ending life at such a young age.

Blog Post 1

I just attended the X-Games in Aspen and was blown away.  I always knew I wanted to go into extreme sports announcing then move into regular news announcing and this just reaffirmed that even more.  After watching the snow cross events (which is pretty much motocross but on snowmobiles) I realized that I would much rather be in that industry of extreme sports than news announcing.  The reason I always thought I would end us as a motocross announcer is because I grew up riding and being around the riders and racers.  My dad used to race and now has a motorcycle parts company so he is in the industry and knows almost everyone.  I have spoken to countless people in the motocross announcing industry that told me my dream of being a motocross announcer is very reachable.  I know all of the riders and can easily identify them while I watch races and events.  I understand the terms and different parts of the track.  The main part of fast paced sport announcing is being able to understand what is happening that very instant and thats exactly what I can do.  Knowing that the easier and more fun route is motocross makes it hard to work towards news announcing.  The extreme sports industry has less money in it than the professional news industry and less recognition.  In order to have a safe future a career announcing for a sport that isn’t popular with a majority of the country isn’t the best idea.  But at the same time motocross is what I love and if there is a solid future out there for motocross I know that I would be able to get it.