Water Intoxication...Sad Story

[Subby]

I do remember the nurse being extrememly handsome.

And burly.

Hmmm.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Again, bullshit. Yes, one can presume that too much of anything could be bad, but:

- Bad doesn't necessarily = fatal;
- It's a reasonable assumption to make that a contest promoted by a radio station is something that doesn't carry the risk of death

One of the radio stations near me has a contest every year where they see who can walk between two towns the fastest. Its basically a 20-30 mile walk that raises change for some shelter. Anyone doing that is risking death. You could get hit by a car, you could have a heart attack/stroke/etc because of the physical stress, etc.

And when that happens, someone WILL sue. That doesnt mean its the station's fault. Water intoxication isnt some mysterious thing. Its the fact that consuming too much of something screws you up. Its the same thing as eating a pound of salt. It throws your electrolytic balance off so far that your body can't process anything, and you die.

And no, its not the same as bumfights. In a bumfight, there is a guarantee of harm. In this, theres a risk. Thats completely different.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Again, bullshit. Yes, one can presume that too much of anything could be bad, but:

When the contestants signed the waiver, did the waiver say that this contest carried the risk of death? Did any of the employees of the station make clear to the contestants what the medical risks involved were before they signed their waivers?

What ever further destroys your argument is the evidence that people at the station did in fact know that this was a risky activity with serious potential medical consequences, and they just brushed it off because the contestants had signed a waiver. .

In every activity that you sign a waiver, there are serious potential medical consequences. By signing the waiver, you acknowledge those consequences. The radio people knew there was a serious potential for issues, and thats why contestants had to sign a waiver. I dont think Iv'e ever seen a waiver that didnt include the possibility of death. Again, it sucks, it shouldnt have happened, etc. That doesnt mean that this woman doesnt bear some responsibility for her own death.

[JPhillips]

Saying she bears some responsibility is far different from saying that suing the station over this would be a frivolous lawsuit.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

One of the radio stations near me has a contest every year where they see who can walk between two towns the fastest. Its basically a 20-30 mile walk that raises change for some shelter. Anyone doing that is risking death. You could get hit by a car, you could have a heart attack/stroke/etc because of the physical stress, etc.

Apples and oranges. People walk every day and have built up a reasonable baseline of risk-assessment about the potential dangers of walking amidst car traffic, and people have a general sense of how much physical exertion they can handle before starting suffer physical stress.[/quote]

Water intoxication isnt some mysterious thing. Its the fact that consuming too much of something screws you up. Its the same thing as eating a pound of salt. It throws your electrolytic balance off so far that your body can't process anything, and you die.

And yet it is a mysterious thing - I'd wager that prior to this case, the vast majority of Americans had no idea that drinking too much water too quickly could make you very ill and possibly kill you - same with eating a pound of salt. This isn't common knowledge among most people (though this incident should raise greater awareness).

And no, its not the same as bumfights. In a bumfight, there is a guarantee of harm. In this, theres a risk. Thats completely different.

Had this station done their homework, they would've had a rough idea of how much water their contestants could consume before they entered seriously risky medical territory. The amount of water they allowed their contestants to consume did guarantee harm.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Synovia

In every activity that you sign a waiver, there are serious potential medical consequences. By signing the waiver, you acknowledge those consequences. The radio people knew there was a serious potential for issues, and thats why contestants had to sign a waiver. I dont think Iv'e ever seen a waiver that didnt include the possibility of death. Again, it sucks, it shouldnt have happened, etc. That doesnt mean that this woman doesnt bear some responsibility for her own death.

I seriously doubt the waiver said anything about water intoxication and possible death. And even if it did, a radio station still can't act negligently in carrying out the contest (not having medical staff check people off before they send them on their way, etc.).

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Saying she bears some responsibility is far different from saying that suing the station over this would be a frivolous lawsuit.

No, its not. To sue, they would be saying that the station is responsible for her death. Theyre not. They were an accessory in it, yes, but this suit would be the same as suing McDonalds because you have a cholesterol problem.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Apples and oranges. People walk every day and have built up a reasonable baseline of risk-assessment about the potential dangers of walking amidst car traffic, and people have a general sense of how much physical exertion they can handle before starting suffer physical stress.

As people do about drinking water. Its not like you just keep drinking it and then you die. There are clear symptoms that you should stop drinking it. You start to get nauseous, you start to have stomach issues, etc. She ignored those obvious symptoms. If something starts to hurt, YOU STOP DOING IT.

[JPhillips]

Then you aren't saying she bears "some" responsibility. You're saying she bears "complete" responsibility.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

In every activity that you sign a waiver, there are serious potential medical consequences. By signing the waiver, you acknowledge those consequences. The radio people knew there was a serious potential for issues, and thats why contestants had to sign a waiver. I dont think Iv'e ever seen a waiver that didnt include the possibility of death. Again, it sucks, it shouldnt have happened, etc. That doesnt mean that this woman doesnt bear some responsibility for her own death.

Sure, she bears some responsibility for entering the contest in the first place. But there's the concept of reasonable expectations - one doesn't enter a contest like this presuming that the contest activity carries a real risk of death, especially when the nature of the activity and the risks involved are not generally well-known.

I'd be real curious to know exactly what the waiver said, and exactly what the contestants were told about the waiver and the risks of the contest. Waiver forms (in general) have become so conservative and standardized that it's common practice for those forms to include death as a consequence.

But if those forms didn't list in some detail the specific risks involved with this contest, i.e. water intoxication and hyponatremia, and that this wasn't just standard legal boiler plate stuff but a real risk, and/or if the radio station employees didn't verbalize those risks to the contestants, than I place very little blame on the contestants.

The blame in this case is significantly higher on the radio station than on the contestants.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

As people do about drinking water. Its not like you just keep drinking it and then you die. There are clear symptoms that you should stop drinking it. You start to get nauseous, you start to have stomach issues, etc. She ignored those obvious symptoms. If something starts to hurt, YOU STOP DOING IT.

She got nauseous at the end of the contest and she stopped, accepting the Justin Timberlake tickets. She still might've been OK if she'd received proper medical attention right away, which is something the radio station should've done - had they done their homework, they'd have had salty stuff on hand to give to the sick contestants to counteract their water intoxication. Of course, if they'd done their homework, they probably wouldn't have held the contest in the first place.

As this case showed, yes you can drink too much water, stop when you feel really sick and still die. This is not common knowledge for most people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Embarrassing contestants is a far-cry from criminal negligence.

Has nothing to do with the point I was making.

You mentioned assuming the station had checked out the contest, etc.
I was pointing out what a bad assumption you're making by doing so.

They're interested in creating some situation that will be enticing to listeners.
Period. Other than that, whether you live, die, fuck, or fly isn't likely to be a part of the process.

If there's a reasonably intelligent adult involved in the process somewhere and they actually have enough authority to control the situation, then there's probably some thought given to any civil or criminal liability that might come up, but that's about it.

They weren't looking to put anybody in the hospital, they just wanted someone to piss their pants in public, or at least do a very creative pee-pee dance that they could describe on-air. But that's pretty much as far as the thought process goes.

My point wasn't about the legal definitions or anything, simply that if you're trusting the morons who inhabit the average radio station to do any sort of research into the safety of something, you're waaaay too trusting or at least are attributing far too much intelligence & ability to those people inside that box with the sounds coming out.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My point wasn't about the legal definitions or anything, simply that if you're trusting the morons who inhabit the average radio station to do any sort of research into the safety of something, you're waaaay too trusting or at least are attributing far too much intelligence & ability to those people inside that box with the sounds coming out.

I don't disagree. What I'm saying though is that, while you probably should assume that these people are morons, you shouldn't have to assume that - someone in a position of authority at that station should've done their homework on this before it happened and either scrapped the contest altogether or put a limit on the amount of water they'd hand out to the contestants and have some kind of backup plan if they had multiple people reach that limit.

I might know that a particular taco stand/burger joint/etc. is run by unsanitary dipshits, but that doesn't mean they should get away with shoddy sanitary practices. Same thing in this case, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I don't disagree. What I'm saying though is that, while you probably should assume that these people are morons, you shouldn't have to assume that

I dunno dawg, but I think there's a pretty good contradiction in that statement somewhere. It's like "I know they're idiots ... but they shouldn't be idiots".

The contradiction I'm sensing lies somewhere around the point that "BUT you knew they were idiots". It's not like we've managed to legislate stupidity out of existence or something.

Hell, if we could, this contest likely wouldn't have existed in the first place.

[JPhillips]

"I'm an idiot," is hardly a good legal defense though. Just because they're stupid doesn't mean they aren't liable for their actions.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Synovia

In every activity that you sign a waiver, there are serious potential medical consequences. By signing the waiver, you acknowledge those consequences. The radio people knew there was a serious potential for issues, and thats why contestants had to sign a waiver. I dont think Iv'e ever seen a waiver that didnt include the possibility of death. Again, it sucks, it shouldnt have happened, etc. That doesnt mean that this woman doesnt bear some responsibility for her own death.

You have no clue about the legality of waivers.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No, its not. To sue, they would be saying that the station is responsible for her death. Theyre not. They were an accessory in it, yes, but this suit would be the same as suing McDonalds because you have a cholesterol problem.

You have no clue about legal responsibility. My guess is you probably have never heard of comparative or contributory negligence.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, if we could, this contest likely wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Works for me.

I place a higher burden of responsibility on those who host events, contests, etc. I think that those that host an activity have an obligation to make clear the risks of said activity to those that would participate. It doesn't sound like that happened in this case (probably because the ones hosting the contest themselves really didn't have a good grasp of the risks involved).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

(probably because the ones hosting the contest themselves really didn't have a good grasp of the risks involved).

That's a very safe bet.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's a very safe bet.

Yep - I'd bet the house on it.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

You have no clue about legal responsibility. My guess is you probably have never heard of comparative or contributory negligence.

I'm not talking about legal responsibility. I'm talking about ethical responsibility.


Legally, the tobacco companies are responsible for people who get cancer, who started smoking after they put the label on the packages that said "this product causes cancer."

Are they legally responsible? Yes. Should they be? No. Its like saying McDonalds should be responsible for your cholesterol. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I'm not talking about legal responsibility. I'm talking about ethical responsibility.


Legally, the tobacco companies are responsible for people who get cancer, who started smoking after they put the label on the packages that said "this product causes cancer."

Are they legally responsible? Yes. Should they be? No. Its like saying McDonalds should be responsible for your cholesterol. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

I tend to think that those that produce a product that knowingly has serious health risks, and compounds those risks by adjusting the ingredients to increase their addictiveness are not being ethically responsible.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I tend to think that those that produce a product that knowingly has serious health risks, and compounds those risks by adjusting the ingredients to increase their addictiveness are not being ethically responsible.

No, theyre not. But its still your own damn fault when you get lung cancer if you start smoking now.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No, theyre not. But its still your own damn fault when you get lung cancer if you start smoking now.

I'd say the risks are well-known enough at this point (and have been for quite a while) that the consumers of cigarettes bear a significant responsibility for their actions, yes.

Would you not agree that there is way more public awareness of the dangers of smoking than of the dangers of drinking too much water in a short amount of time?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No, theyre not. But its still your own damn fault when you get lung cancer if you start smoking now.

You sound like a surly failed lawyer or something. Why are you so angry?

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'd say the risks are well-known enough at this point (and have been for quite a while) that the consumers of cigarettes bear a significant responsibility for their actions, yes.

Would you not agree that there is way more public awareness of the dangers of smoking than of the dangers of drinking too much water in a short amount of time?

I would not agree that there isnt sufficient public awareness of the simple concept that when your body tells you to stop doing something, you should stop.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Subby

You sound like a surly failed lawyer or something. Why are you so angry?

No, I'm just sick of our litigous culture.

I had some issues with this back in highschool while wrestling. You start to feel sick WAY before it gets to the level that it kills you. There are clear signs that you shoudl stop drinking water. She ignored them.

The contest was stupid and dangerous, but they didnt kill her. Her own stupidity killed her.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I would not agree that there isnt sufficient public awareness of the simple concept that when your body tells you to stop doing something, you should stop.

What part of "in the case of water intoxication, when your body tells you to stop it may already be too late" do you not understand?

[Synovia]

see above.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Subby

I do remember the nurse being extrememly handsome.

And burly.

Hmmm.

If it makes you feel any better, you were right about the saltiness.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

see above.

This argument is a poor one. There are plenty of activities that can make you feel unpleasant but are nothing more than that. There are plenty of activities that don't produce any symptoms or very mild symptoms but can be very harmful or deadly well before major symptoms appear.

She likely started to feel bloated first - natural reaction and expected. Her next symptoms were likely starting to feel nauseous and light-headed. From what we know of the contest, that happened at some point before she stopped drinking water. How much before, I don't know. And how light-headed and nauseous is a matter of subjectivity anyway. She didn't actually throw-up until after she'd stopped drinking water, but at that point - without any medical assistance - it was too late for her.

Look, I can down a couple of gallons of vodka before my body tells me that was a really bad idea and I die. I can eat bad meat or bad fish and not feel anything wrong until it's too late.

Your argument that your body will always let you know when to stop doing something isn't in fact true.

[Huckleberry]

Give him a break. Clearly his personal anecdotal experience can be applied universally to every individual without exception. How can you argue with that?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Give him a break. Clearly his personal anecdotal experience can be applied universally to every individual without exception. How can you argue with that?

Clearly.

[cartman]

Maybe he was sent here on a mission to warn us of the dangers of water intoxication and an overly litigious society. After all, half of his posts so far on the board are contained within the confines of this thread.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by cartman

Maybe he was sent here on a mission to warn us of the dangers of water intoxication and an overly litigious society. After all, half of his posts so far on the board are contained within the confines of this thread.

Already did an IP check .

Edit: It was clean.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by cartman

Maybe he was sent here on a mission to warn us of the dangers of water intoxication and an overly litigious society. After all, half of his posts so far on the board are contained within the confines of this thread.

So now post count dictates the validity of an argument? Shouldnt we just whip it out and compare?



She got home before she died. She died 6 hours later. She could have driven to the hospital.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Synovia

She got home before she died. She died 6 hours later. She could have driven to the hospital.

What part of INTOXICATION don't you understand? The part where it can critically disrupt a person's thinking processes, or the part where she clearly didn't realize the peril she was in? You seem to be arguing that people suffering from alcohol poisoning, say, should be able to drive themselves to the hospital.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

What part of INTOXICATION don't you understand? The part where it can critically disrupt a person's thinking processes, or the part where she clearly didn't realize the peril she was in? You seem to be arguing that people suffering from alcohol poisoning, say, should be able to drive themselves to the hospital.

Water intoxication is not the same as alchohol poisoning. If she could drive home, she was aware enough to get to the hospital.


I've had water intoxication. its nothing like being drunk.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

What part of INTOXICATION don't you understand?

The part where he has to read?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

So now post count dictates the validity of an argument? Shouldnt we just whip it out and compare?

No, it just struck me strange that a person who just joined the board has over half of their posts in a water intoxication thread.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I've had water intoxication. its nothing like being drunk.

If part of water intoxication is brain swelling and severe headaches, I'd rather be drunk. I've had headaches before that have just debilitated me and reduced my ability to make sound judgements just like being drunk.. at least for me.

[cartman]

I'm glad that the University of Florida invented Gatorade, since that has gone a long way towards preventing more cases of water intoxication in athletes. I'm also grateful that of the schools in Florida that they invented it, because if Florida State invented the stuff, we'd be swilling Seminole Fluid.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I'm not talking about legal responsibility. I'm talking about ethical responsibility.


Legally, the tobacco companies are responsible for people who get cancer, who started smoking after they put the label on the packages that said "this product causes cancer."

Are they legally responsible? Yes. Should they be? No. Its like saying McDonalds should be responsible for your cholesterol. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

You also have no clue about ethical responsibility either. Do you even know how the law developed over the years? Legal responsibility and ethical responsibility are very much intertwined. You seem to believe ethical responsibility is a narrower component than legal responsibility. You have it backwards. Ethical responsibility is much broader than legal responsibility. I can assure you that if someone is found legally responsible for something, there is no doubt there was ethical responsibility involved.

This water intoxication case is the best example. The employees may very well avoid legal responsibility, but there is no doubt they crossed way over the line of their ethical responsibilities as humans. We don't need a court or a lawsuit to figure that one out.

Since you clearly don't know the difference between the two, you ought to stop talking out of your ass.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by cartman

Seminole Fluid.

Semin-Aid probably wouldn't have flown...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Water intoxication is not the same as alchohol poisoning. If she could drive home, she was aware enough to get to the hospital.

I've had water intoxication. its nothing like being drunk.

No, but it's a lot like being INTOXICATED. It's, uh, even the word. "Intoxicated" doesn't necessarily mean stumbling around, slurring your words, and hitting on ugly bar girls -- it means diminished physical and mental control based on the toxicity of a foreign chemical in your blood.

An easier example: if you have a splitting headache, it can vastly affect your decision-making processes and your physical abilities. She was clearly unaware that she was in as much danger as she was, based on two things: the disregard by the contest administrators for safety, which gave her a false sense of security, and her inability to act in the interests of her own self-preservation afterwards due to the physical and mental effects of lethal water intoxication.

[Passacaglia]

Man, this is way worse than that one time when Johnny Fever gave away the entire prize budget for the year, all in one contest!

Anyway, I wonder the number of smokers and non-smokers on each side of this argument.

[Toddzilla]

I heard some of the audio from the contest this morning on O&A, and those fired radio people are toast. Early on, the female host of the "Morning Rave" mentioned "Can't you die from drinking too much water?" and the other hosts dismissed her. Further along, the contestant (now deceased) was complaining about feeing really bad, and yet nothing was done and no one helped. How in the world can you have a contest like this without EMTs present?

I suspect that criminal charges are forthcoming, and it will be the shortest trial in history - if it gets that far.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I heard some of the audio from the contest this morning on O&A...

Since I was evidently too sneaky in posting this on page one, I'll label it a bit more clearly in case people are still wanting to hear the audio.

LINK TO AUDIO CLIPS FROM THE CONTEST: http://www.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/kdndslides/

[KWhit]

I just wish I could hear some audio clips from the contest.

Sigh.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I just wish I could hear some audio clips from the contest.

Sigh.

Oh! Heck, I've been posting the wrong thing this whole time. Here is the audio (and video!) from The Contest: hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp0F21P7ceg