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
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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. )
posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you have a tragic run-in with a lawyer/doctor that scarred you for life when you were young?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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!"
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds more like murder to me. Up from negligent homicide that I originally felt should be the charge.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But it is a PSA.
