THE VIKING REVIEW April 2019 Edition

THE VIKING REVIEW
   April 2019 Edition

April 2019                              The Viking Review                                      2

EDITORIAL
THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS SCANDAL: THROUGH THE EYES
OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT
Kenneth Boggess
        If we students are told to put our complete trust into a system labeled as impenetrably
standardized, then what are we to do when it becomes clear that the system is exploitable?
        As people of all ages and backgrounds survey the backlash and aftermath of the recent
scandals of admission at many high-tier institutions of education, the media has been filled with
the arguments of pundits, statements of federal prosecutors, and even videos of YouTubers
linked somehow to the fallout. But as a high school student looking at such an involving scandal,
I cannot help but wonder: What on earth am I supposed to do to get a fair shot at a good
education? Students have no choice but to put their trust in a system forced upon us that is
labeled as “standardized” but are not offered any guarantee that it will live up to its descriptors.
There is very little transparency in the realm of college applications, especially for big-name
universities that ambiguously wave on applicants with legacy status or other traits without
releasing any sort of general admissions process to be vetted for fairness. If students are forced to
enter this system and all of its hoops to jump through to pursue a higher education, then should
they not have a voice in how that system is to be managed?
        There has been a lack of published response from high school students, the very group of
people that such a shocking discovery affects the most. We are the ones who are hurt the most by
such syndicated subterfuge, yet everybody else seems to be doing the talking for us. On behalf of
every high school student that is staring at a phone, laptop, or newspaper while trying to
understand how those entrusted with our future could sacrifice our opportunity for extra cash, I
beseech both schools of higher education and the organizations involved in their admissions
processes to at least try to make efforts towards transparency and move away from such
convoluted procedures in admitting applicants. Entrusting such power to relatively small groups
of people comes with a sense of responsibility to which they must be held accountable.
        There are clear holes in the admission processes of top universities, as plainly revealed by
the fallout around a scheme with a setup straight out of a comedy routine aiming to “help the
wealthiest families in the US get their kids into school.” 1 As a student who will be applying to
colleges in the near future, I would sincerely appreciate at the very least a promise that I will not
be replaced with an inflated, affluent peer - that my genuine hard work will not be eclipsed by
under-the-table transactions and exploitations of the powerful networks of collegiate athletics.
        Now that the media has forced the College Board, ACT, and schools involved into the
glare of the public spotlight, I have no doubt those organizations with faculty members and
students exposed will take proper action to address such a pressing issue, but our educational
system should not be set up so that action is only taken when the situation blows up and becomes
displayed all over the news. Of course, it is undeniably difficult to regulate such an esoteric facet
of the American educational system, but the very least that could happen is for the greater public
to gain a better sense of what happens in the workings of the intricate cogs of the machine of
collegiate admissions - to peel back a layer or two of the under-the-table conversations and
decisions rooted in the interests of outside parties.
        So on behalf of the millions of high school students in the United States and beyond, I
sincerely implore both those organizations under fire and the bodies (both governmental and

April 2019                              The Viking Review                                     3

private) that regulate or govern them to genuinely work towards eliminating even the possibility
of such loopholes. Scandals fade to the past in due time, but this discovery only serves to
highlight a mark of frustration for the average high school student: peers cheating the college
application process by exploiting its complexities and the immense power of a few admissions
counselors and athletic coaches.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/admissions-scandal.html

EDITORIAL
BREXIT UPDATE: THE PERILS OF THERESA MAY
Lia Fourakis
        Since June 2016, with the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union
and the subsequent resignation of David Cameron, the nation has faced significant hurdles in
attempting to implement its decisions. Prime Minister Theresa May has recently come under fire
for her presenting of proposals time after time again, after being shot down constantly by
Parliament. Lawmakers and the House of Commons are seeking a way out of the mess that they
are entangled in, but the Prime Minister has rejected their four alternatives to the exit deal, that
were softer in nature than the original and may have actually halted Britain's departure. This
follows May’s own negotiated divorce deal that had been thrice rejected. Dissent has arisen from
those who wish to sever all ties with the EU, and those who wish to maintain some sort of
relationship. Hanging on the edge of a precipice, Britain now has until April 12 to formulate a
new plan, or it will be faced with a forceful exit from the bloc.
        There are still multiple options remaining: the UK can attempt to push May’s unpopular
deal through a hostile Parliament for the fourth time, allowing the country to leave the bloc
without some sort of deal, or host a new election to change up Parliament. However, favor in the
House of Commons has turned against leaving with no deal, the same as the rejection of not
leaving at all. Thus, some sort of compromise must be reached to achieve the majority for a
single proposal before the clock runs out. Many wish for the House to have more chances to put
their resolutions on the table for voting, as their Prime Minister received three opportunities.
Hopes still remain that reconsideration of previous proposals would produce a deal that
establishes a credible economic relationship between the nation and the rest of Europe. Known
for her determination, however, May could still attempt to push her argument through the house
once more. She has also agreed to her resignation once a proposal is passed.
        For the past votes, the narrowest majority (276-273) was for a deal that would keep
Britain in a customs unions with the EU for smooth and tariff-free trade. Other close ones
included calls to stay in the EU’s single market for goods and services (lost 282-261), or to hold
another referendum with the final deal leave the country’s fate up to its people yet again (lost
292-280). With a wider margin, a proposal to cancel Brexit if no agreement was reached two
days before the “deadline” failed 292-191. Clearly, the United Kingdom and its legislators wish
for a divorce with the European Union, yet not enough to overcome their politics and protect
their investment in the country’s future prosperity.

April 2019                               The Viking Review                                      4

         The proposal writers have even had enough, with conservative lawmaker Nick Boles,
drafter of the single market alternative, choosing to leave his party to sit independently in
Parliament due to its failure and lack of desire to compromise.
         There still is time for additional considerations to be brought to the floor, but the
stalemate, in some people’s minds, points to the possibility of a snap election that will alter the
configuration of Parliament to trigger a majority vote.
         The government and concerned citizens are not the only ones involved, however, as
businesses are pointing to the impasse as the leading cause for discouraged investments and
slowed economic growth. Executives are calling for a compromise to uphold the nation’s
reputation as an economic giant and haven of commerce and to continue frictionless trade for
stability. With a Brexit without future relations laid out for companies, many consider the
situation as if a deal has already happened, preparing “just-in-case” measures: shifting jobs and
trillions in assets to European cities so they could still retain customers in the continent after
Britain's exit. Other international companies have withdrawn expansion plans for Britain, like
from Japan, as the nation has fallen short on the promise of being a center for economic stability
with access to the European Union. Suffering a credibility hit, and potential economic
catastrophes, the UK plans to impede trade between Japan and the EU, has automakers are
liberalizing their own trade deals and cutting Britain out of the equation for the first time since
the 1980s.
         A special EU summit on April 10 had been scheduled to hear any delayed Brexit
proposals or make last-minute no-deal preparations. Leaning toward a soft-Brexit currently, May
faces the possibility of a Brexit civil war. The coordinator for Brexit from the European
Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, even stated, “The U.K. has a last chance to break a deadlock or
face the abyss.” 1

   1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brexit-vote-today-british-lawmakers-reject-4-
      alternatives-theresa-may-brexit-deal-2019-04-01/

POLITICS
THE AFTERMATH OF THE NEW ZEALAND SHOOTING
Ayman Bootwala
        The New Zealand shooting occurred on March 15 , 2019. Around 50 people were killed
                                                            th

and 50 people were injured. The shooting took place at 2 different mosques: the Al-Noor
Mosque and the Linwood Islamic center. This shooting was horrific because the shooter felt the
need to broadcast the events live as they were happening. The reaction from people around the
world and specifically from people in New Zealand was heartwarming and objective.
        Right after the shooting, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern inquired into whether any
government agency could have prevented the attack. The idea was to prevent any other attack
like this to ever happen again in the future, an initiative that America is still behind on. Six days
later, Ardern announces that New Zealand will ban all semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles,
and high capacity magazines. After the parkland shooting in Florida, there were debates about
banning semi-automatic weapons, but nothing came about. One of the reasons pro-gun
legislation is still prevalent in the US is because of the ever reaching power of the NRA. The

April 2019                             The Viking Review                                    5

lobby holds Congress in their fingertips and is able to manipulate them with ease. New Zealand
does not have lobbies with the magnitude at which the NRA operates in the US.
        Although the anti-gun legislation is good, it still received push back from some New
Zealand citizens. In fact, one outspoken citizen commentated, “To cause the gun rights of
responsible New Zealanders to be attacked…our prime minister is now capitulating with him…”
(Dean) 1. The citizen is saying that the prime minister is as bad as the terrorist that killed 50
people because she is banning semi-automatic guns from New Zealand. This sort of view was
supported by the NRA when they were asked to give a statement on the terrorist attack in New
Zealand. The NRA used the generic answer, “…we are sympathetic for the victims and their
families…” but declined to comment on the gun that was used.
        Before the anti-gun legislation was proposed, New Zealand was infested with guns. For a
country with a population size of 4.6 million, they had 1.2 million guns. Lots of New Zealanders
own guns for one main reason: they are extremely easy to obtain. Anyone 16 years or older could
own a non-semi-automatic gun and anyone 18 years or older could own a semi-automatic gun.
The new legislation makes it harder for citizens to obtain guns, which is something the US
should implement in their legislation as well. It now can take several weeks to months to buy a
gun in New Zealand now and citizens have to pass background checks as well.
The response from the government after this shooting was great, but the response from
progressive New Zealanders was heartwarming. The shooting happened on a Friday which is the
holy day for Muslims. A week later Muslims were encouraged to spread out as much as possible
and pray in public instead of their mosque. Many non-Muslim women, including Prime Minister
Ardern, dressed in the Muslim garb to not only support Muslims but also to support their fellow
citizens who had been hurt in this awful tragedy. Even Facebook was able to remove 1.5 million
videos of the shooting which was streamed live on their platform. This is an arduous task that is
usually impossible. The world was unified for a short time while lamenting this tragedy. That is
the world without the United States.

   1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/asia/new-zealand-shooting.html

SCIENCE
EXPANDING MEDICAL COVERAGE WITH A MALPRACTICE
SUBSIDY
Anastasia Barrett
        Malpractice insurance is an important factor in how health care professionals set up their
employment. Doctors are known for making plenty of money, even though they still must worry
about the expensive—and usually required—payments in case of a lawsuit. Malpractice
insurance can vary by state and occupation. Unfortunately, this discourages doctors, especially
in specialty fields, from working in poor or low-population areas as they would not make as
much money and have the same high insurance fees. Malpractice insurance should be subsidized
in poor and low population areas to improve the health care system in the United States.
        An article by Makary and Daniel (2016) defines medical malpractice as a failure to
correctly perform a procedure on a patient. This can range from having almost no consequences
or costing a life. People should be aware of the risks of maloccurrence that are common during

April 2019                              The Viking Review                                      6

their procedures in order to give informed consent, but it is also important that doctors lower as
many risks as possible. Since some systems and procedures contain more risks, the malpractice
fees that doctors must pay increases; as such, doctors with higher fees will remain in areas where
they can make more money to balance the high cost of insurance.
        Doctors are required to meet specific guidelines concerning malpractice. They must fully
document, avoid controllable risks, and inform the patient. If something unrelated goes wrong,
the doctor would not be held responsible if he or she proves that an error did not lead to the
patient’s worsened situation (Soergel, Shöffski, Hillemanns, Hille-Betz, & Kundu, 2015).
        Morally, Roemer (1980) discusses how physicians have a responsibility to help people in
a more economically fair playing field, but they are neither incentivized nor educated to maintain
that duty. He clarifies that both a systems change in government involvement in health care and
a more philosophic understanding of what it means to be a socially responsible medical
professional would most effectively counteract the heavily commercialized health care of the
United States. One of these reforms can be subsidizing malpractice as a step towards
maintaining the social responsibility of doctors. By allowing doctors to maintain private
authority while lowering the cost of practicing in areas that need more doctors, the government
can take an effective measure in providing people with health care.
        A central example of the complications of malpractice insurance lies in
obstetrics. Childbirth in itself is already loaded with risks and unknowns. This means that the
insurance fees for obstetricians and midwives are extraordinarily high and burdensome, making
professional practice in small or poor populations unsuitable. There are risks in any medical
procedure, and it is important for the patients to be informed and for medical professionals to be
trained enough to minimize risks. However, a third party is necessary to address the high
premiums so that one can train specialty practitioners like obstetricians, and to ensure that areas
currently lacking gain coverage (Soergel et. al, 2015).
        Continuing with the challenges of obstetrics due to malpractice fees, Chou and Lo Sasso
(2009) conducted a survey for almost four thousand physicians completing training in
obstetrics/gynecology and primary care. The two were able to conclude that for surgeons and
primary care physicians with education debt, malpractice fees were a significant deterrent in
choosing a location to start practicing. Obstetricians and physicians with plenty of debt are
unwilling to locate to areas marked as underserved. This enforces that underserved areas will
continue to lack in specific fields of medicine as doctors are concerned about not making enough
money. The result is a vast amount of people being far away from the care they need.
        The challenges faced by rural health care have already become evident by the example of
the hospitals in general. Moscovice (1989) writes that rural and industrial hospitals face a lack of
growth in the surrounding populations, a lack of professionals to hire, and a lack of capital to be
given towards them. He also describes that the term rural is more subjective, but it is statistically
easier to measure rural as not in standard metropolitan areas. There must be a system put in
place that identifies areas that do not have the resources necessary to provide the health care that
is needed. The hospitals themselves can remain in business by attracting trained medical
professionals who could make the same amount of money by not having to dedicate a large sum
to malpractice insurance.
        According to Prasad (1989), health care is a system that has been regulated to push
customers into business-like transactions. The high costs mean that the lower class cannot pay
for standard health care fees or insurance, so lower class Americans do not get the health care
they need. Putting off health care for the poor will end up creating more costs in the future

April 2019                              The Viking Review                                       7

because of a lack of available and affordable preventative care. Already, Americans have
disenfranchised the lower class despite arguing that all people have a right to health care. How
can Americans say that all people deserve health care while providing no means to make sure
that doctors can afford to practice in a privatized system that favors wealthy and populous areas?
People deserve health care no matter what their income is.
        Lee, Soffel, and Luft (1992) write that Americans are primarily concerned about the costs
and coverage of health care. About 2/3 of Americans believe that it is the government’s
responsibility to take action, while 1/3 believe it is the private sector’s responsibility. Increasing
costs and market failure have pointed out that the current system is not enough to provide
sufficient health services to the people. People, meanwhile, have not prompted enough federal
action to counteract such issues.
        Compared to other industrialized countries, the United States has a significantly higher
cost of medical care yet less access to it. Additionally, malpractice payments make up less than
half a percent of medical costs in the United States, considering the expansive medical budget
(Anderson et. al, 2005). Such a problem calls for the readjustment of the healthcare system;
doing the same thing will not produce better results. Considering the small portion malpractice
takes up in health care spending, subsidizing it would serve many benefits, the most important of
which is more access to health care across the country.
        An argument against subsidizing malpractice insurance is the ability to use tax credits as
payment for malpractice. The issue is not everyone can get an employer-sponsored tax credit.
Linda Blumberg (2001) states that this calls for alternative options, such as limiting the rates
insurance companies can charge or guaranteeing coverage through a program like Medicaid. A
tax credit is unable to dispute the idea that rural areas will probably not have as many patients,
meaning less income and less money to be credited towards a standard malpractice premium.
The only medical practitioners who would greatly benefit are those who already have an
extensive amount of patients and a generous salary. Health care would remain unevenly spread
out and the costs would remain high.
        Despite the ideologies held by Americans for health coverage, Patton (1989) discusses
how the creation of rural health programs in the 1970s did not lead to a long term solution to the
minimal coverage of rural America. Budget restrictions and inflation made it difficult to
maintain existing programs and put expansion on hold. This means that more programs need to
be put in place to make sure that people get the services they need and are able to pay for it, and
the solution is subsidizing.
        Allen et. al (2014) conclude that even with Medicaid, patients still do not get the services
they need; they believe more policies should be put in place to remove the issue. Subsidizing
malpractice insurance could substantially reduce the problem. This would have the federal
government continue to put money towards areas lacking in medical coverage and facilitate the
existing system of private offices and hospitals. Increased federal subsidies would bring clinics
to the areas that need them while allowing clinics in poor areas to lower the costs that the people
around can afford.
        An additional concern for American politics is the quality of healthcare, but,
unfortunately, these characteristics are hard to come by for many people. In a survey examining
patients’ experiences with new Medicaid enrollment, it was found that many people felt that
there was a socioeconomic stigma associated with lower income patients. This interfered with
patients getting all of their needs met (Allen et. al, 2014). It is necessary that health concerns are

April 2019                             The Viking Review                                    8

able to be treated and the government should address the issues of not having access to standard
clinics.
         Quality health care is very important considering the ideas of everyone deserving of what
they need to remain healthy. Prasad (1989) describes that people in poverty have a lower quality
of life, which results in more or worse medical conditions. Poor populations, at the same time,
have no quality health care available. Malpractice subsidies would decrease the costs of practice,
which would allow doctors who move to poor areas to charge less. Medical practitioners would
gain a similar amount of revenue and a similar amount of patients thanks to the federal money.
Health facilities would have the money they need, and people in poverty will have access to
quality, affordable health care with subsidization.
         Allen et. al (2014) explain that only a fraction of doctors who are surrounded by lower
class Americans are willing to provide service to these people. There are more negative attitudes
towards insurance through welfare systems in more conservative states. A malpractice insurance
subsidy shows people in medicine that they can serve any population and make a comparable
amount of money; after all, money is proven to be a large influence in how medical professionals
set up their career and location. People in medicine would be more inclined, then, to provide the
same quality of service as each population would have a similar monetary gain for the
workplace, whether or not it is paid by the patient, insurance, or the government.
         It is arguable that subsidizing malpractice insurance would increase medical errors as
physicians would not have to worry about paying their own fees. Doctors may still be held
accountable for these concerns by having to stay within a reasonable amount of cases for the
fields. Penalizing doctors for frequent malpractice would reduce slacking off and address
people’s concerns of taking advantage of the welfare system (Makary & Daniel, 2016). This is
not an excuse to send worse doctors out to the lower class and densely populated areas.
         California has already set an example of how increased funding for health care has
increased people’s access to medical services. The state has improved education systems for
nurse practitioners and physician assistants to increase the number of healthcare
professionals. This was after identifying over 200 areas of the state that had lacked enough
health services, especially for ethnic minorities and immigrants (Morgan & Sullivan,
1980). Even though California did not directly subsidize malpractice insurance, this is an
example of how government action is needed to address the lack of health services for
everyone. The subsidies for nurse practitioners and physician assistants in debt are a solution to
how medical professionals are deterred from moving to underserved areas for that reason of
debt. Directing money towards malpractice insurance specifically in underserved areas would
encourage medical professionals to open up practices in these areas, thus successfully
distributing clinics where new ones are needed. Federal money is beneficial to the costs and
quality of health services.
         California’s attitudes towards malpractice should be applied at a national level. It is
estimated that a similar method for the nation as a whole could save around one hundred billion
dollars a year (or slightly less than ten percent of current national spending). Malpractice
premiums themselves continue to rise, yet people in the United States spend more money per
capita than other industrialized countries on malpractice; the overall legal costs and amount of
cases held are significantly higher. Compared to other industrialized countries, the United
States’ healthcare costs are affordable to fewer people, more expensive altogether, and no better
in quality of service (Anderson et. al, 2005). California proves that subsidizing these expenses
where they are needed is effective. The national government should follow the state’s example.

April 2019                             The Viking Review                                     9

         Lee et. al (1992) compare the United States’ shortcomings in health care and
acknowledge how the health insurance systems are dated. Payments are based on historical costs
of smaller groups rather than the community as a whole. Pre-existing conditions mean extra
costs for the patient or even refusal of service from certain companies who do not want to take
on the expenses. People continue to hold jobs for the sake of keeping the health insurance plans
of their employers. Health care costs rise faster than incomes, including inflation. Each case is a
signal for funding as it is clearly needed to prevent any further damage and reverse the existing
consequences.
         In order to lay out a better system of health care availability, there must be a way to
categorize populations. Rural areas currently defeated by the system are large populations that
are far away from a traditional metropolitan area. Policymakers must be informed of better
statistics on how people are distributed, what services are available, the costs, and what programs
have worked and have not worked (Patton, 1989). Laying out these definitions is the first step
towards identifying where health care has been lacking. Then, it will be easier to set conditions
that certain areas meet in order to have malpractice subsidies. Areas that have the least
availability per capita and the highest costs on patients and practitioners should receive generous
funding from the federal government to balance out coverage.
         Rural hospitals can improve the quality of care by specific fields of practice
subsidized. Moscovice (1989) highlights that rural hospitals have gotten more people in
emergency care after car accidents thanks to emergency medical technicians. The hospital staff
itself was undertrained and limited in the knowledge of how to take care of these types of
patients. The goal of subsidizing medical malpractice is to get the care that is needed where it is
needed and to reduce costs. Rural hospitals that initiate training for needed specialties may get
reimbursement for taking an initiative to address their own shortcomings.
         The United States faces a complicated series of issues with its health care. Doctors must
be held liable and they pay malpractice insurance in case of a lawsuit. These fees, standardized
by field of medicine, are generally consistent by location. This means that doctors are
discouraged from working in low-income and low-population areas. Government subsidies
towards malpractice insurance in lacking areas will improve access, reduce costs, and ensure the
quality coverage of more people in the United States.

                                           References

   1. Anderson, Gerard F., Hussey, Peter S., Frogner, Bianca K., & Waters, Hugh R.
      (2005). Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized
      world. Health Affairs. 24(4). doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.4.903
   2. Allen, H., Wright, B. J., Harding, K., & Broffman, L. (2014). The role of stigma in access
      to health care for the poor. The Milbank Quarterly, 92(2), 289-318. doi: 10.1111/1468-
      0009.12059
   3. Blumberg, Linda J. (2001). "Health Insurance Tax Credits Potential for Expanding
      Coverage." Urban Institute. Retrieved from
      webarchive.urban.org/publications/310212.html.
   4. Chou, C. F., & Lo Sasso, A. T. (2009). Practice location choice by new physicians: the
      importance of malpractice premiums, damage caps, and health professional shortage area
      designation. Health Services Research, 44(4), 1271-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
      6773.2009.00976.x

April 2019                             The Viking Review                                     10

   5. Lee, P. R., Soffel, D., & Luft, H. S. (1992). Costs and coverage. Pressures toward health
       care reform. The Western Journal of Medicine, 157(5), 576-83. Retrieved from
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022049/
   6. Makary, Martin A., & Daniel, Michael. (2016). "Medical error—the third leading cause
       of death in the US." British Medical Journal, 353(2139). Retrieved from The BMJ.
   7. Morgan, W. A., & Sullivan, N. D. (1980). Nurse practitioner and physician's assistant
       clinics in rural California. Part I: issues. The Western Journal of Medicine, 132(2), 171-8.
       Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1272011/
   8. Moscovice, I. S. (1989). Rural hospitals: a literature synthesis and health services
       research agenda. Health Services Research, 23(6), 891-930. Retrieved from
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065542/
   9. Patton, L. (1989). Setting the rural health services research agenda: the congressional
       perspective. Health Services Research, 23(6), 1005-51. Retrieved from
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065545/
   10. Prasad, N. (1989). A systems view of health care for the poor. Journal of the National
       Medical Association, 81(2), 169-78. Retrieved from
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625961/
   11. Roemer, M. I. (1980). Medical ethics and education for social responsibility. The Yale
       Journal of Biology and Medicine, 53(3), 251-66. Retrieved from
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2595890/
   12. Soergel, P., Shöffski, O., Hillemanns, E., Hille-Betz, U., & Kundu, S. (2015). Increasing
       Liability Premiums in Obstetrics – Analysis, Effects, and Opinions. Geburtshilfe und
       Frauenheilkd. 75(4), 367-376. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1545955

PUBLIC HEALTH

DEE DEE AND GYPSY ROSE BLANCHARD: (FABRICATED)
HEALTH AND AN UNHAPPY FAIRYTALE
Abhi Suresh
        Dee Dee Blanchard and Gypsy Rose Blanchard: a mother-daughter duo who worked
together to help fight the many chronic illnesses Gypsy had, ranging from leukemia and asthma
to muscular dystrophy. Dee Dee was the perfect mother, dedicating all of her time helping to
care for her daughter. It was no secret that Gypsy, whose brain resembled growth to that of a
seven-year-old, would need help for the rest of her life, especially confined to her wheelchair.
Even with her crippled state, Dee Dee managed to secure trips, activities, and donations for
Gypsy through charities such as the Make a Wish Foundation and the Ronald McDonald House.
Habitat for Humanity even built a house for the Gypsy and her mom after they were displaced by
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
        The fairy tale life that Gypsy and her mom held throughout Gypsy’s sick life was
smashed to pieces, however, when on June 14, 2015, Dee Dee Blanchard was found stabbed to
death in a pool of blood in her own bed. Multiple stab wounds had been inflicted on her back
Friends and neighbors rallied and suspected who would hurt such a nice mom, merely trying to
take care of her child. Additionally, no one knew the whereabouts of Gypsy and this also put the

April 2019                             The Viking Review                                     11

whole community on edge. Who would commit such a heinous crime? Who would take Gypsy
without any of the medicine she needed to survive?
         But Gypsy was no sick child. She had orchestrated her own mother’s murder with her
boyfriend, Nicholas Godejohn, whom she had met online. Gypsy Blanchard gave her boyfriend
and coconspirator the duct tape, gloves, and the knife that he would stab Dee Dee with once she
was asleep. Over the years, Gypsy had attended science fiction and fantasy conventions, where
she could blend in, and at one event in 2011, she tried to escape with a man she had met online.
Needless, Gypsy and Godejohn, who had criminal offenses of his own, had a long-term online
relationship, which translated into in-person meetings, where the two had sexual relations when
the protective Dee Dee was not home. Gypsy was trapped. With an increasingly physically
abusive mother adding to the years of emotional trauma, she was left with no other way out.
         Now, a good thought to wonder is: Why did medical personnel not intervene? Doctors
treated Gypsy and her mom as a special case, with a child who had a medical history close to the
size of a textbook. Most doctors bought Dee Dee’s claim that all of Gypsy’s medical records had
been lost in Hurricane Katrina - and who else than her beloved, caring mother would take and
spend the time and effort to know all of the details about her daughter’s medical history. Even
so, the public’s perspective on Gypsy and Dee Dee’s shifted following Dee Dee’s death. It
showed the level of abuse Gypsy had endured and how Dee Dee had been unfit to raise her own
child, whom she proclaimed to have illnesses in order to make a living on disability checks.
While it is easy to contend Dee Dee as the villain, it is also crucial to remember that she was the
one who was mentally ill. Munchausen syndrome by proxy, where those affected feign diseases,
illness or psychological trauma, was cited as the reasoning for Dee Dee’s actions against Gypsy
in the trial after her death. Ultimately, Gypsy Rose Blanchard confessed to killing her mother,
but her sentence was reduced to ten years, which she will serve until 2024 when she becomes
available for parole.
                 Gypsy’s story is of a childhood and early adulthood filled with emotional and
physical abuse, but it also highlights the overwhelming breaks in our society. Doctors who
become hyper-focused on prescribing prescriptions to make patients feel better and fill their
pockets do not address the problems at hand. Even when doctors like Bernardo Flasterstein, who
suspected that Dee Dee had Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), did try to interfere in the
situation at hand, Dee Dee had plenty of doctors to turn to and the ability to fabricate stories to
social services, leaving Gypsy confined to her cruel home. With the rise of shows like HBO’s
The Act, which details Dee Dee’s murder and Gypsy’s story, maybe it is time we focus on the
health of the public both physically and in terms of a healthy emotional and overall mindset.

April 2019                 The Viking Review                      12

                                       Staff

                      Editors                                   Writers

    Kenneth Boggess – Junior                            Ayman Bootwala - Junior
    Lia Fourakis – Junior                               Anastasia Barrett - Senior
                                                          Abhi Suresh - Junior
                      Other

    Lia Fourakis – Layout Designer
    Dahlia Al-Tikriti – Cover Art
    Mr. Pedelty – Faculty Advisor

“The true alchemists do not change lead into gold’; they change the world into words.”
                                  - William H. Gass