Unfortunately, you can drink to much water, although it takes a lot of effort. If you drink too much water, it flushes out the concentrating gradient in the kidneys. End result = can be cerebral edema (brain swelling, up to the point where it herniates down the brainstem and kills you).
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Saw that... What I'd like to know is: how much did she drink in how long a time period? We used to make jokes during softball or soccer games about how we were going to die of too much water and we were always reassured that it'd take A LOT.
What a bummer. What a bummer for her kids, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I saw this on the news the other day and thought it would make an apperance on here.
It's sad. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Initially, contestants were handed eight-ounce bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.
quote:After he quit, he said, the remaining contestants, including Ms. Strange, were given even bigger bottles to drink.
Which doesn't tell us exactly how much she drank, but does provide a bit of a clue.
It also makes me wonder how much water is too much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I hope her family sues the station. That contest was an idiotic and dangerous stunt (as all too many radio station contests are).
I also can't decide if this is more or less tragic than the people who manage to die of water intoxication trying to fool a drug screen.
Horrible. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say more tragic, if you're being forced to make such a judgement.
Taking drugs and hiding it is selfish, entering this contest to try and win her kids a game system is selfless, all the more so since she literally died in the effort.
quote:You would need to chug down about three quarts of water or more all at once to come down with a case of true water intoxication. It does happen, but so rarely that I couldn't find statistics on the number of cases. These people become drowsy, lightheaded, and weak. They have trouble coordinating bodily movements and thinking straight, looking and feeling as if they just stumbled out of the local bar. But the water-intoxicated can't just go home and sleep it off. They must get treatment or risk going into convulsions, a coma, or even death.
quote: The authors emphasize that the patient drank "excessive" amounts of fluid -- averaging approximately 1.64 liters per hour throughout the event. They suggest that drinking fewer fluids overall, and drinking fluids that have sodium such as many sports drinks, could have prevented the man's severe condition.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The radio station is responsible, I think. This woman didn't understand the risk. Horrible, horrible story. Senseless death. Oy.
I listen to NPR. I can't stand the other idiot stations.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Clearly the radio station personnel didn't understand it either. It's certainly nothing I've ever heard about, nor is it something I would have thought to check on. They're probably liable, but I can't help feeling bad for whoever organized this. They weren't trying to kill anyone.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I agree with Juxtapose. I doubt the station had a clue, given how rarely this seems to happen. It's an all-round sucky thing to have happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd say more tragic, if you're being forced to make such a judgement.
Taking drugs and hiding it is selfish, entering this contest to try and win her kids a game system is selfless, all the more so since she literally died in the effort.
Good point.
I agree that the radio station personnel did not do this with malice aforethought. However, they were negligent, IMO criminally so. And as I said before, that is hardly unique. There are many radio station contests that I have heard of over the years that I am sure no one had the forethought to run by a medical doctor for an opinion on potential hazards.
It's not even the first time someone has died from participating in a radio station contest.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Thanks for the info, Lyrhawn + quidscribis.
I agree that the station is responsible, if not from a legal standpoint (waivers being signed and all) but from a humane standpoint. The winner is quoted as saying that she and the other woman were puking and feeling sick in the bathroom together. Hindsight, being what it is, maybe the radio station personnel should have done a little more research into what MIGHT happen - and then how much is too much and what some warning signs are.
I'm not saying anyone should try to sue, just that it's sad that no one even recognized the possibility that the contest could turn tragic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure there WILL be a lawsuit, it's how these things work.
I think they are responsible insofar as when you hear about a competition like this on the radio, you ASSUME that you won't DIE from it. It's that inherent trust that was breached through their negligence. I don't know what price they should pay, but I agree that a heavy burden lies on them for this.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Were they a CC station? If so - they'll probably settle, probably for lots of $$ if there's a suit.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I saw a 20-20 or 60-Minutes show a few months back about a Frat hazing where the same thing happened, and a kid died of water overdose.
I always kind of wonder if you can get meat poisoning. Those places where you have to eat a 6.lb T-bone in one sitting frighten me.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
I hope they gave the Wii to her kids.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I hope the people who produced the contest feel morally responsible, but I sure as hell hope they aren't held legally responsible for this.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
You can get poisoned by ANYTHING in too high a quantity. I'm sure if you ate too much meat you could get iron poisoning. However, with water, it's not exactly that the water poisons you, it is that processing it takes out too many minerals from your body. This will only happen if you're doing something like chugging it in a contest, if you're thirsty, you'll never drink too much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tell that to the guy in the iron man contest.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Little_Doctor: I hope they gave the Wii to her kids.
I hope they didn't! "Hey, let's play with that toy Mommy died for!" "Yay!"
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I hope the people who produced the contest feel morally responsible, but I sure as hell hope they aren't held legally responsible for this.
Why? They should be legally responsible to have done due diligence -- and there is no evidence that they did. Seriously, all they had to do was ask a doctor, "Could this be dangerous? What health problems could it cause?" Resisting the urge to urinate can damage the urinary system, water intoxication aside.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I'm sure if you ate too much meat you could get iron poisoning.
Highly doubtful. Your cholesterol and serum triglyceride levels would probably not look so hot. And all that excess protein would probably put a strain on your kidneys, among other things.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: This will only happen if you're doing something like chugging it in a contest, if you're thirsty, you'll never drink too much.
Not true. If you are thirsty because of dehydration due to sweat loss (or crying), you absolutely can drink too much plain water -- you should hydrate with water with sugar and/or salt. (Or Gatorade/Powerade, which is much the same thing.)
(Or, what Lyrhawn said.)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Couldn't we shift just a little bit of blame to the woman who didn't bother to simply figure out if this was safe to do?
Really. Who's stupid enough to enter a contest of extreme excess without doing the simplest homework. You can bet that if I ever go off and do something extremely dumb for money that I'm going to figure out whether or not it's possible to die from it.
Pretty irresponsible on the woman's part.
(Darwin Award finalist?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: Pretty irresponsible on the woman's part.
(Darwin Award finalist?)
Agreed. Except since she already reproduced, does she qualify for the DA?
Just because she was irresponsible doesn't mean the radio station wasn't.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Frisco has a point. More accurately a blunt object to the head...but regardless, I don't think it's fair to completely blame the radio station. At what point do people stop being responsible for their actions and we shift over to blaming other people for their actions? Can we sue her husband for being negligent and letting her go on the show?
While I do think the radio station takes more responsibility for hosting the contest, I don't think a law suit would be "justice".
edit - just wanted to add, it sucks this person died like this, I don't want to make light of that.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Here's me, playing 'Average Joe'.
If I hear about a contest, for drinking water, on a radio station, the prize being something my kids really want... I'm going for it. Shoot - all I have to do is drink water!!
Here's me, playing 'Average Radio Station'.
We've got a cool thing to give away. What's a simple contest we can hold to give it away? How can we make it funny? How can we be sure it'll translate through sound only? How can we make it dumb enough that people will keep listening, or at least checking back?
Here's my long-winded point.
Yeah. They both didn't go far enough into checking out what they were getting into. She should have made sure it was only drinking water. That there was nothing else it could be other than drinking water and calling it a day. The radio station should have made sure that something they were hosting was only drinking water. That there would be nothing else than some people drinking some water, giving away a cool thing and calling it a day.
Both situations suck to be in. Imagine being the person who thought up the contest? It all sucks. Even though it sucks, I still don't see any good coming of a law suit. What - so it can sit in the front of your mind everyday until it's settled?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. So that other radio stations will think twice before having similarly idiotic contests without checking out potential ramifications.
Also, their actions caused her death. Nothing can make up for her loss. But the money can help with the financial hit her family will have to deal with as a result of her death.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think if the Radio station is promoting this event there is the implication that they have researched it, and determine HOW to keep it safe.
I've seen radio station have contest where to get a prise you had to dive into a small pool full of wet cow DUNG. My first thought was did they sterilize the cow dung first. If the cow dung came from a home supply store then it had almost surely been steamed and therefore was organically inactive; in other words, reasonably sterile.
However, if the cow dung came straight from a farm, then there probably was a very high potential of organic contamination that very easily could put your health at risk.
Again, my point is, that by putting on a public contest there is a reasonable expectation that the radio station has done some research and found a way to make the contest reasonably safe.
True there is always an element of personal responsibility, and if this is a civil case, the jury should weigh the responsibility of each party and offset the settlement based on the an evaluation of those responsibilities.
Just a thought.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: She should have made sure it was only drinking water. That there was nothing else it could be other than drinking water and calling it a day. The radio station should have made sure that something they were hosting was only drinking water. That there would be nothing else than some people drinking some water, giving away a cool thing and calling it a day.
The problem is that in this case, it was the drinking just water that killed her.
Regardless of whether or not she had urinated or held it in, it was the actual processing of that much water through her kidneys [or rather, not processing it -- too much to fast diluted her blood out faster than her kidneys could keep up, and so her brain swelled to compensate for the osmotic force differential] that killed her. It had nothing to do with holding it in.
[ January 16, 2007, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I think if the Radio station is promoting this event there is the implication that they have researched it, and determine HOW to keep it safe. ... Again, my point is, that by putting on a public contest there is a reasonable expectation that the radio station has done some research and found a way to make the contest reasonably safe.
Indeed. And the radio station puts on stunts like these to drum up listenership and increase ad rates. The station financially benefits from contests set up like this, and so they incur additional responsibility for how they obtain that money.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Quick question. If someone were to be vomiting and having liquid bowel movements for, say 12 hours and had drunk about 3 16-oz glasses of water in that time, some in slow sips, some in injudicious gulps, and had definitely ejected more than that amount of liquid in the interval, would that someone be in danger of something like this?
And, if so, how should it be avoided?
(I'm calling the advice nurse, too, but everything I found on the net said one could wait 24 hours after such incidents start for adult patients.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
On the law suit issue, for better or worse, we have created a system of private enforcement for dangerous, non-criminal behavior in this country. That is, we expect injured persons to present their case, a judge to rule if such a case is worthy of reimbursement, defendants to demonstrate why it is not, and juries to determine the facts. This would not be a frivolous suit, and, lacking such a suit, there is almost no way to put stations on notice that have a duty to investigate and inform participants of the danger of their stunts. I have not determined if I think the station should be liable yet, but I have no problem saying a law suit over this is non-frivolous and not inherently harmful.
BTW, I'm sure there was a waiver of liability; it's not ever clear if such a waiver is enforceable (although one should assume it is whenever one signs one).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The WebMD article said you'd have to chug three quarts of water all at once. That's a long way from a quart and a half over 12 hours.
3 sixteen oz glasses doesn't even get you to the recommeded daily intake.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dag, what dkw said. And if this person were to drink things with electrolytes (e.g., soup, gatorade, etc) or eat some things with salt, then this would help replenish electrolyte stores.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've been put on diluted Gatorade and saltines until my doctor's appointment at 2:30.
Thanks, dkw and CT.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I think if the Radio station is promoting this event there is the implication that they have researched it, and determine HOW to keep it safe. ... Again, my point is, that by putting on a public contest there is a reasonable expectation that the radio station has done some research and found a way to make the contest reasonably safe.
Indeed. And the radio station puts on stunts like these to drum up listenership and increase ad rates. The station financially benefits from contests set up like this, and so they incur additional responsibility for how they obtain that money.
Agreed, with both of you.
Diluted Gatorade has another name. It's called Pedialyte. Feel better, Dags.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was in the jury pool a couple of years ago for a man and woman who were charged with child abuse murder. As a punishment for stealing juice from her sister, they forced their little girl to drink a lot of water, which ended in her death.
I felt really sorry for them* because by all acounts, they were trying their best to raise a really difficult child, and were following the advice of child therapists.
*Note that feeling sorry for them doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have been charged, convicted, or punished. I have no opinion either way. I just feel sorry for them.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Would the outcome of this have been different if they had been drinking something like Gatorade instead of just water?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
zgator, the answer is "likely, but not definitely," and the reason why takes longer to explain. I'll ty to do that over my lunch hour.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Diluted Gatorade has another name. It's called Pedialyte.
Here, its' Peditral, which I drink fairly regularly, being foreign, not able to handle the heat, sweating profusely, and drinking lots of water. Lots by normal definitions, not lots by crazy people definitions.
Get better, dags.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
A child therapist suggested forcing a child to drink lots of water?!
How sad for the woman and her family. Maybe at least this will prevent other deaths from water intoxication.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Just a quick note:
Diluted Gatorade is not the same thing as Pedialyte
It is similar, but not the same, as the Pedialyte has a different balance of electrolytes and sugars than does Gatorade. It is less of an issue for bigger kids, but it can be a big issue for wee ones. Substituting Gatorade for Pedialyte (even diluted Gatorade) can put a little kid in a precarious situation.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I don't understand the idea of inventing creative, sadistic physical punishments for your children. Do people really want to model their family after the Spanish Inquisition? I mean, I understand needing to be firm with difficult children ... but stuff like forcing a kid to drink that much water ... it just seems like it steps over the line into, "How sick were you to think of that?"
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
CT, where would a 3-yr old fall on that scale? My 3-yr old had a stomach bug and was throwing up all morning recently. Our pediatrician told us that if we didn't have any Pedialyte, we could use diluted Gatorade. I have a feeling that if it wasn't safe, maybe she told us that because it was a fairly short time and I'm sure he wasn't very dehydrated, but regardless, I'd like to know for the future.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
As for thinking up creative, sick punishments, I totally agree. That is a hallmark of abuse, in my experience.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator: CT, where would a 3-yr old fall on that scale? My 3-yr old had a stomach bug and was throwing up all morning recently. Our pediatrician told us that if we didn't have any Pedialyte, we could use diluted Gatorade. I have a feeling that if it wasn't safe, maybe she told us that because it was a fairly short time and I'm sure he wasn't very dehydrated, but regardless, I'd like to know for the future.
My training was that we don't use Gatorade to rehydrate in 2 yrs old & under, and avoid it for kids under 5 who are in marked dehydration. I imagine this is a sort of gray area where you balance risks and benefits per the individual case. If it were me, I would be more cautious in an under-5-yr-old the more dehydrated the child.
That isn't much of an answer, I'm afraid. I am most worried about the wee ones (under two, especially the infants).
----
Just out of curosity, was this a Family Medicine physician or a Pediatrician? (not implying anything -- I just like to see how the training differs, when it does)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: A child therapist suggested forcing a child to drink lots of water?!
How sad for the woman and her family. Maybe at least this will prevent other deaths from water intoxication.
I think it was actually a family therapist who specialized in extremely difficult children whom others had failed to help.
You know -- the sort of therapist who they show in episodes of Law & Order.
quote:I mean, I understand needing to be firm with difficult children ... but stuff like forcing a kid to drink that much water ... it just seems like it steps over the line into, "How sick were you to think of that?"
I believe that it was an attempt to match the punishment to the crime, much like forcing a kid who has been caught smoking to smoke an entire pack with a bucket over their head.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I believe that it was an attempt to match the punishment to the crime, much like forcing a kid who has been caught smoking to smoke an entire pack with a bucket over their head.
Please tell me this is just an example and not a real situation, because that makes me feel sick.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Just out of curosity, was this a Family Medicine physician or a Pediatrician? (not implying anything -- I just like to see how the training differs, when it does)
She's a pediatrician. I do think it has to do with the fact that he wasn't really dehydrated. And your answer did help if only to satisfy me that there is a gray area in things like that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:I believe that it was an attempt to match the punishment to the crime, much like forcing a kid who has been caught smoking to smoke an entire pack with a bucket over their head.
Please tell me this is just an example and not a real situation, because that makes me feel sick.
I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't know of anybody who personally did this, I have encountered the smoking example multiple times in stories. The situation with the water really did happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Just a quick note:
Diluted Gatorade is not the same thing as Pedialyte
Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was joking. Also, I have usually preferentially used Pedialyte even for older kids, because Gatorade isn't kosher (Powerade is).
Thanks for the important clarification!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator:
quote:Just out of curosity, was this a Family Medicine physician or a Pediatrician? (not implying anything -- I just like to see how the training differs, when it does)
She's a pediatrician. I do think it has to do with the fact that he wasn't really dehydrated. And your answer did help if only to satisfy me that there is a gray area in things like that.
Yeah. If the kid isn't very dehydrated, it doesn't matter much -- after all, we don't insist kids drink Pedialyte all the time! And mildly dehydrated isn't that different than normal.
There are two main issues with electrolyte imbalances in the blood.
First, if you drink a whole lot of something very dilute very quickly (like the woman who drank so much water so fast above), then the kidneys can't process out the extra water fast enough. And so the blood itself gets very diluted.
Imagine that the kidneys have a filter, like a small membrane of thick cheesecloth. As the blood rushes past in the blood vessels, some of the water and tiny particules get squeezed though into the kidney itself. The faster the blood is flowing (heart rate) and the more pressure it is under (blood pressure), the more fluid gets squeezed through the cheesecloth (the "glomerular filtration rate," where the cheesecloth represents a bunch of filtering units known as glomeruli). However, there is a maximal rate at which stuff can get squeezed through, and at some point of water overload, the kidneys are just not going to be able to keep up.
At that point, the percentage of water in the bloodstream just keeps going up and up. The kidneys are filtering out as much of the squeezed-out fluid as fast as they can handle, and they are dumping water as fast as possible into the bladder (which just keeps stretching out bigger and bigger if the person doesn't urinate -- but the bladder can handle a lot of stress before anything would back up into the kidneys, so that's usually a one-way passage).
When the blood gets very diluted like that, the general principles of osmosis take over. All throughout the body, all the cells that see this blood flowing past will suddenly start to be a lot more concentrated in ions than the blood flowing past -- even moreso than usual. So they won't be able to help but swell up as water flows down its concentration gradient through the semi-permeable membranes into those now extra-salty cells (by comparison).
For most areas of the body, this isn't so much of a problem. Tissues can swell up and just wait until the kidneys can catch up on their filtering out of the extra water. But the brain is enclosed in the skull, which is a very hard and very inflexible case. When the brain swells past a certain point, it has only one way to go -- down. Down through the main opening for the spinal cord (the foramen magnum), where it "herniates out" and damages the main brainstem. That is where a bunch of the essential reflexes that maintain life support are, and when they blow out, so do you.
By the way, this a main reason why medical professionals will look into the back of the eyes when they are worried about meningitis, or head trauma, or water intoxication, or any other reason that the brain might swell up (and give an altered mental status). You can see the optic nerve coming in to the retina back in there, and if the rest of the brain is swelling, so will the area around the optic nerve. It gets blurry around the edges from the puffiness.
--
A second main reason why people get into electrolyte disturbances has to do with the kidneys, but that's a different issue. Maybe later. It's very cool physiology.
---------------
Edited to add: A gentlemen who is losing a lot of fluids through his gastrointestinal tract and trying to replace them at a more normal rate is not at much risk for overloading his system with dilute water. Not only are the kidneys very good at correcting for problems if you give them half a chance, but he would likely be losing water via the GI system that never even had a chance to get absorbed.
And so this particular concern (the over-dilution leading to brainstem herniation) isn't much of an issue. However, failing to replace salts long-term can lead to other potential problems. (Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature. )
[ January 16, 2007, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was joking. Also, I have usually preferentially used Pedialyte even for older kids, because Gatorade isn't kosher (Powerade is).
Thanks for the important clarification!
No worries!
It's the anal retentive in me. And I have seen infants brought in with altered mental status because the family couldn't get the child to drink pedialyte (too salty), so they used something else.
Just a good double-check, as it can be hard to figure out, especially for new parents.
---
Edited to add: simplified explanation of the physiology of what most likely happened to the woman in the OP is at the bottom of the prior page, FYI
[ January 16, 2007, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: And I have seen infants brought in with altered mental status because the family couldn't get the child to drink pedialyte (too salty), so they used something else.
My pediatrician used to recommend mixing Pedialyte with juice when my kids wouldn't drink it alone. I think it was a 1:1 ratio, but it's been a long time (my youngest is 7, and I don't think she ever needed Pedialyte). Does that seem reasonable?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It depends on the age and volume of the child (size, not loudness ), as well as level of dehydration. I don't think I could give a general rule that would address all the variables sufficiently. Certainly the closer to normo-osmotic fluid (i.e., just like blood), the better, but how far away you can go from that safely would depend on the particulars of the situation.
This isn't me fudging, it's me trying to be accurate. But it looks the same! *laughing
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:By the way, this a main reason why medical professionals will look into the back of the eyes when they are worried about meningitis, or head trauma, or water intoxication, or any other reason that the brain might swell up (and give an altered mental status). You can see the optic nerve coming in to the retina back in there, and if the rest of the brain is swelling, so will the area around the optic nerve. It gets blurry around the edges from the puffiness.
Fascinating! I mean, the whole thing was, really, but I was already fairly familiar with what you were saying. This, though, I didn't know! I love learning stuff like this.
quote:(Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature. )
:: laugh ::
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've never watched a whole episode of ER, but I managed to see the part of an episode about 3 years ago when a guy drank 3 gallons of water before a drug test. Does that constitute any kind of argument that this sort of thing should be better known generally?
Or do the majority of the people watch that show for the relationships?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Or do the majority of the people watch that show for the relationships?
I don't know, I've never seen it. I don't watch movies with doctors or lawyers in them if I can tell from the title.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Did you have a tragic run-in with a lawyer/doctor that scarred you for life when you were young?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It depends on the age and volume of the child (size, not loudness ), as well as level of dehydration. I don't think I could give a general rule that would address all the variables sufficiently. Certainly the closer to normo-osmotic fluid (i.e., just like blood), the better, but how far away you can go from that safely would depend on the particulars of the situation.
Fair enough. I wasn't told this as a general guideline, IIRC, but as a response to "Now what do I do!?! She won't drink the stuff!"
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
House had an episode on water intoxication, too. Maybe all the medical shows go looking for seemingly innocuous but actually dangerous things to tell everyone about as a public service message.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting medical fact: the difference between systolic blood pressure taken while the patient is lying down and standing up is a good indicator of dehydration (I was 20 points lower standing up).
The doctor said that I could rehydrate over the next two days with dilute Gatorade, or he could give me an IV and I would feel better (as regards the dehydration) by the time I left.
He was right - I was surprised by the return of saliva to my mouth. I knew I felt bad and kind of beat up, and I knew I was dehydrated, but I didn't realize how much of the bad feeling was dehydration, not the effects of the virus, lack of food and sleep, and the exertions of the night.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Apparently pulse can be a measure as well. My brother was sick once, and because his pulse was rapid, they gave him saline. They ended up giving him two liters before his pulse came down. (For reference, the average male has about 5 liters of blood).
I hope you feel better soon, Dagonee. Being sick sucks. Take care of yourself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: House had an episode on water intoxication, too. Maybe all the medical shows go looking for seemingly innocuous but actually dangerous things to tell everyone about as a public service message.
And I have given out an article on water intoxication (which especially risky in newborns, who generally should not be given plain water at all) to my chemistry class every year that I've taught one. Generally within the first week of class, as a follow-up to my "Everything is a chemical, even water" lecture.
No, I don't think I'm a TV medical drama. But it is a PSA.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ten people ended up getting fired because of the radio station contest:
I expected something of the sort -- the station is playing CYA.
This is going to hurt them if this goes to court:
quote:A listener who said she is a nurse called the show and warned the deejays on air of the risks of the game.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I was listening to excerpts from the show this morning (a bit disturbing, actually). The DJs knew full well that water intoxication could kill you, and had joked on air about a guy who had died from it at a local college.
A woman called in to tell the DJs the game was dangerous, and that people could die. They laughed and jokingly asked "Is anyone dying in there?" and another DJ said "Yeah, I think this guy is."
When Jennifer (the woman who died) was brought into the room, her stomach was visibly a lot larger from water, and they joked about it. She said she had a bad headache and was dizzy, and one of the other DJs said that she was having trouble walking. They offered her a deal for Justin Timberlake tickets instead of the Wii, and she took it and left.
In my mind, if they already knew someone had died from drinking too much water, they should have been more aware of the warning signs of water intoxication and had a medical professional on hand to offer assistance should anyone start to have problems.
Instead, they kept joking that the people all signed releases and they weren't liable if anyone died or had other problems. When the woman called in, they kept saying "Make sure all those people sign releases - we don't want the insurance company after us" and comments to that effect.
Release or no, they set up a dangerous event knowingly, had no one there to watch for signs of a problem, and had no one there to deal with medical problems if they arose. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds a lot like negligence to me.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sounds more like murder to me. Up from negligent homicide that I originally felt should be the charge.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Oh yeah, that's just so many levels of worse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, they are so going to hell.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Most states don't allow waiver of liability for gross negligence. Even fewer allow waivers for recklessness.
Criminally, this would be very state and fact specific. Causation is generally more stringent for criminal liability than civil liability. Inducing someone to do something dangerous but legal may or may not be capable of supporting a murder charge, or even a negligent homicide charge. I'd probably charge them, though, unless there were clear precedent saying I couldn't. Whether or not the waiver actually listed the risks would be a big part of the case - deception certainly helps.
Look to see this on Law and Order next season.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Oh yeah, that's just so many levels of worse.
No kidding. Wow.
This shouldn't surprise me, given what I know about disgusting radio show practices, but it does. Just sickening.
quote:In my mind, if they already knew someone had died from drinking too much water, they should have been more aware of the warning signs of water intoxication and had a medical professional on hand to offer assistance should anyone start to have problems.
At the absolute minimum!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The name of the contest was called "Hold your wee for a Wii"
They had to drink a 12oz. bottle of water every 15 minutes. So thats 48oz an hour. I know a lot of people that go through a LOT more than that every hour here at work.
Every contestant was given a release form a day or two before the contest. The lady did have time to look up the possible health risks she was taking. Since the radio station gave her a release form she knew full well that she was at risk.
A Wii isnt worth the torture they went through. Its a $250 system. Yes, they are hard to find, but eventually you will find one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Every contestant was given a release form a day or two before the contest. The lady did have time to look up the possible health risks she was taking. Since the radio station gave her a release form she knew full well that she was at risk.
And they KNEW the health risks she was taking, and could have told her easily. Maybe the release had all this information, but I doubt it.
quote:I know a lot of people that go through a LOT more than that every hour here at work.
Quite frankly, I doubt this is true.
I don't doubt that there are hours withing which someone has 48 oz of water. But I doubt there are a lot of people who each drink 6 gallons of water during an 8-hour work shift.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Beyond that, contestants said that after several dropped out, the bottle size increased. Even if it just went from 12 oz to 16 oz bottles, that's up to 64 oz in an hour - which is more than enough to cause water intoxication.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Dag, out of curiosity, can the other contestants sue as well due to this negligence, just from the fact that their lives/health was endangered?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You generally need damages that are caused by the actual negligence/recklessness - either identifiable economic harm such as damaged property, lost wages, medical costs, etc. or non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.
I assume there are none of the economic type. There could be emotional (OMG! I almost died!), but they are severely restricted in most states.
Unless someone had to see a doctor (even just to get checked) I'd guess no. Nothing's for sure, though.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Here is CNN.com's report, for those interested.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Unless someone had to see a doctor (even just to get checked) I'd guess no.
Last I heard (been seeing it on the news lately-- don't usually watch but have been at my mom's) several participants were ill enough to seek emergency treatment. But I don't know whether they had to pay much out of pocket or whether any have suffered long-term damage.
The peole they talked to said that the risks of water intoxication were not explicitly stated, that they were handed the waivers and told to sign, and even if they read it didn't really understand what it meant. The news station's legal consult guy came on and said, "Yeah, signing a waiver saying "we're not liable if you die" doesn't make them not liable if you die."
I think they're in trouble. But didn't the radio station have to approve this contest? I doubt that just firing 10 staffers and taking the show off the air is going to fix this for them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But didn't the radio station have to approve this contest? I doubt that just firing 10 staffers and taking the show off the air is going to fix this for them.
Almost certainly they did. And regardless, I'm pretty sure that California law will hold the station responsible for their employees' actions even if explicit permission was not requested.
Now that there is evidence that the DJs knew and didn't care (joking about a previous death from a similar incident on the air! good grief!), I hope the DA nails them to the wall.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Did the radio station force these people to guzzle gallons of water? The people had the option of quitting at any time.
Im sorry, this to me is like someone suing McDonalds or another fast food place for a heart attack because they ate their food every day. McDonalds doesnt have you sign a waiver when you order your Big Mac and fries. This is a frivolous lawsuit. If she started feeling sick, then she should have stopped.
Tobacco companies know that their product could potentially cause harm. There are "waivers" or "warning labels" on the packaging. However how many tobacco companies are caught up in lawsuits because of people get lung cancer?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree. They thought the risk was possibly wetting themselves from holding it in. Encouraging people to take action that could easily kill them without letting them know of the risks is a terrible thing.
Incidentally, the McDonalds incident was coffee in a flimsy paper cup that was hot enough to deliver third degree burns. There are frivolous lawsuits out there, but that isn't one of them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Geraine, by the time they started to feel sick, they would have required medical attention - which didn't appear to be present at the site from all accounts.
By the time she started to feel sick (and did stop, btw, taking a lesser offer instead of continuing with the contest) it was too late. She had already done enough damage to her body that she was going to be in serious trouble without medical help.
As for the McDonald's lawsuit, check out this site that lays out a list of simple facts about the case, without the kneejerk hype.
Edit: Really thought the McDonald's comment was re: the coffee, not the Big Macs... Big Mac comment responded to further down the page.
[ January 18, 2007, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
To be fair, Geraine didn't mention the coffee incident - the quote was
quote:Im sorry, this to me is like someone suing McDonalds or another fast food place for a heart attack because they ate their food every day. McDonalds doesnt have you sign a waiver when you order your Big Mac and fries.
Just to be clear.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not sure that's what it said the first time I read it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yep, it's been edited. It was first about the coffee.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Tobacco companies know that their product could potentially cause harm. There are "waivers" or "warning labels" on the packaging. However how many tobacco companies are caught up in lawsuits because of people get lung cancer?
I was with you until this. Tobacco companies are getting sued because they actually lied and attempted to subvert studies that demonstrated how bad cigarettes are for your health. They created counterstudies that actually lied and misrepresented the data, and alot of people were mislead into thinking cigarettes were not as dangerous as they really are.
In THIS day and age, yes, if you smoke you can't hold the tobacco companies liable as I think there is enough accurate data being floated around about cigarettes.
But its not as if Mcdonalds ever claimed their Big Mac cured cancer, or even simply doesn't have that much fat in it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
WARNING : The link below is likely to make you a LOT more angry than you have been. The SacramentoBee article which convinced the Sacramento DistrictAttorney to begin a murder investigation. If the link doesn't work directly, google "sacramento bee" "four-hour and 40-minute" and click from there.
[ January 18, 2007, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If it were possible that eating 15 Big Macs in a day could kill you before the next morning, and a radio station started a contest of eating one Big Mac every 10 minutes, I would hope that they would have some liability for the results of their actions.
- Did the people drink the water willingly? Yes. - Were all the dangers made apparent? That seems to be one of the big questions. - Were appropriate safety precautions taken? No.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sorry, I did not realize it had been changed. Ignore my previous post, then.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that I like how you can now edit posts and the "edited by" message doesn't appear. It used to appear even if you edited it right away, didn't it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It did. Now there's a 10-minute window.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Judging from the SacBee article, and the excerpts I heard this morning, I'd say that the dangers were not made apparent to the contestants. And further, if they were listed on the waiver in any way, the comments of the DJs and interns downplayed any danger during the contest itself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:"Your body is 98 percent water," a co-host responded. "Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"
Apparently, he's a vegetable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Judging from the SacBee article, and the excerpts I heard this morning, I'd say that the dangers were not made apparent to the contestants. And further, if they were listed on the waiver in any way, the comments of the DJs and interns downplayed any danger during the contest itself.
Not only did they downplay it, they (incorrectly) claimed that anyone who had drunk too much would simply throw up. (From their overfull bladder, apparently.)
That would be the same idiot who thinks people are 98% water, so clearly he's really up on his medical knowledge.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Since I know some people asked and didn't see it posted, the woman drank about 6.5 liters of water over the course of a few hours, from the article I read.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
The woman who died stated in one clip that her head hurt and she didn't feel well, but she was told that " the water would make our heads hurt and we would puke". It sounded as if she were under the impression that if that happened, everything would be fine, but she would be out of the contest.
At every event I have ever been to where the slightest possibility of a "risk of harm" to individuals participating in the contest was present there have been medical personnel on site, be it EMT's, RN's, or Doctors. It would be especially important to have medical assistance on site if there was any prior knowledge of injury or death in a similar situation, if it were allowed at all!
Yes, the contestants should have researched and known all the implications of what their own actions could bring about, however, knowing that someone was killed under similar circumstances (as the dj's did) should have had alarm bells ringing in their heads (that is if they had any brain cells in them that worked) that they should have someone on hand to assist if the need arose. They should have been aware of warning signs to watch for. IMHO they had a responsibility to provide medical assistance to anyone showing warning signs. They also had a responsibility to tell those participating about the young man who died from water intoxication - that it was a possible result of what they were about to do, not to make light of it and joke about it. They make me sick!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Interesting bit embedded in the article. The alleged waiver?
quote:At one point, a listener who identified herself as a nurse called in to warn the disc jockeys that the stunt could be fatal, according to an audio tape of the broadcast.
"Yeah, we're aware of that," one of them responded.
Another DJ laughed: "Yeah, they signed releases, so we're not responsible. We're OK."
The lawsuit claims that Strange never signed a liability waiver. Instead, the form merely granted the station permission to use the contest in its promotional materials, said the family's attorney, Roger Dreyer.
Also, like many other California stations, this station's license is up for renewal. There's FCC action as well.
There are some careers that are absolutely ruined here. But at least they'll be alive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for the update, Stephen. I assume if there were criminal charges in process, they would have been mentioned.
Interesting that there actually was no waiver, although I doubt that it matters much.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Feel better, Dags.