Natasha Richardson did die from a blow to the head
Bookworm on Mar 19 2009 at 9:32 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
The media types were right: Richardson died from a blunt impact, which ruptured an artery and caused an epidural hematoma. My Mom actually had that happen to her after a fall, but she had a smaller bleed, and it took a week for the severe trauma to develop. Fortunately, she responded to surgery that drained the site, although it took her probably a decade to recover from the trauma of coming so near to death.
That the media people ultimately proved to be right does not change the point I made early this week, which was that they leapt to a conclusion based on insufficient data.
Related posts:
- I wonder if Natasha Richardson had an aneurysm — and what this says about the media *UPDATED*
- Obama and Palin — head to head
- American strikes another blow at cheese-eating surrender monkeys
Email This Post To A Friend
2 Responses to “Natasha Richardson did die from a blow to the head”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leaping to conclusions with insufficient data is what they do.
“Dewey Defeats Truman”
I think you were perfectly right to raise the points you did. Whilst I would not wish to suggest a conspiracy at work, it is a great deal more convenient to sign the incident off as blunt impact trauma, without any existing medical predisposition. As one of your posters on the other thread pointed out cogently (twice), the story has much better “legs” when it can be used as a platform for a “skiing is dangerous”, “helmets should be made compulsory”, “was someone to blame?” tirade. It is not going to make the slightest difference to the parties suffering from this personal tragedy, but on the other hand I am somewhat leery about the media’s willingness to see it as an opportunity for op-ed pieces, especially when Natasha Richardson’s case is all too often being bracketed by journalists* with the (totally different) ends met by Sonny Bono or the Kennedy boy.
* To be quite fair, the International Herald Tribune – not a paper renowned for sensationalism – asks many of the same questions…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/19/healthscience/20braincnd.php