In "The End", Who's Responsible?

[SirRoxalot]

What's That Smell

Charlie, maybe it's me, but your last post has an aroma very much like [EDIT]

You have provided NO links to any articles saying that OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR A PERSON TO SUFFER FROM "WATER INTOXICATION".

I have provided the Wikipedia link because it's EASY TO FIND, and succinct. Because it's from Wikipedia DOESN'T MAKE IT INACCURATE. I have also provided LINKS for EVERY QUOTE USED IN MY POSTS. I may not have REPEATEDLY added the links, because I ASSUMED THAT YOU'D READ THEM THE FIRST TIME.

I've also provided AT LEAST FOUR OTHER REFERENCES with information about water intoxication. If you read those references, you'll find that there are SEVERAL references to people DIEING FROM CONSUMING TOO MUCH WATER, without exercise. For example, how about the reference discussing psychiatric patients in a hospital situation consuming large quantities of water in order to dilute their meds, and dieing as a result? Hikers in the Grand Canyon suffering from Water Intoxication because they overhydrate? Even in athletes, it's not the exercise, it's the dilution of serum sodium and other electrolytes because they're replacing lost water and electrolytes with JUST WATER. So, it is possible to DIE FROM DRINKING TOO MUCH WATER WITHOUT ANY OTHER EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, and "Mrs. Strange is the FIRST person on record to have died by drinking too much water without having taken drugs, or having some other circumstance contribute to the danger" IS INCORRECT.

In fact, you may want to go back and reread THIS POST, AND THE LINKS PROVIDED.

Here's the BOTTOM LINE:

THERE WAS AMPLE, EASILY OBTAINABLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THAT WATER INTOXICATION COULD BE DANGEROUS.

THE RADIO STATION WAS AWARE THAT THE CONDITION HAD KILLED PEOPLE IN THE PAST.

THE RADIO STATION SHOULD HAVE ASKED COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE PROVIDING UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF WATER TO CONTESTANTS.

Contestants had a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that the RADIO STATION WOULD NOT PUT THEIR LIVES IN DANGER WITHOUT TELLING THEM.

THE RADIO STATION, TOLD CONTESTANTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT THEY WERE DRINKING WASN'T DANGEROUS, AND "If it gets dangerous for somebody, their body will automatically throw it up, and if you throw up the water, you're out of the contest."

All of that makes the radio station - and at least SOME of the people involved - liable.


[EDIT-profanity]

 

[cabradio]

Re: What's That Smell

Charlie, maybe it's me, but your last post has an aroma very much like [EDIT]

You have provided NO links to any articles saying that OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR A PERSON TO SUFFER FROM "WATER INTOXICATION".

I apologize for this next comment, but I am really tired of trying to discuss something with someone who has a limit in their ability to comprehend what I have written. I don't mind giving an explanation for clarification but I don't like writing for 3rd grade comprehension.

I did not say other circumstances are required for a person to suffer from water intoxication. I never have. I have said ALL EXAMPLES you have given have HAD extenuating circumstances that added to the cause of water intoxication.

That being said...I think people can now grasp that you have difficulty in comprehending because you are hell bent on twisting everything to make your own point, as you just did again...

You are either purposely trying to make me look foolish by twisting what I say around, or you really have a comprehension problem.

 

[Neanderpaul]

SirRoxalot,

With all due respect...

Take some time...Search everywhere you can and use all available means at your disposal.

Please provide one, just one instance of this actually happening to a normal, healthy adult prior to this event. Not the Chino case, which was a hazing ritual. Not from a kidney disease website, which deals with failing organs. Not a site that lists the average medical capacity of the human kidney, Not a hypothesis of the potential for it. I'm looking for one cited circumstance that can be used for reference of the actual liklihood of this scenario.

All I'm asking if you to find one medical case. One case.

Every citation you've posted. Every link, every encyclopedic entry. All of them...include extenuating additional circumstances required for this to have happened. There exists not one case anywhere of this having happened before.

If you can find one, I'll be happy to change my contention. It would really change a lot of people's position I think.

Please. Try to find one for me.

I'm looking for one actual case, in all the years of medical record keeping.

Is that not a clear request?

Just one...

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Please provide one, just one instance of this actually happening to a normal, healthy adult prior to this event. Not the Chino case, which was a hazing ritual. Not from a kidney disease website, which deals with failing organs. Not a site that lists the average medical capacity of the human kidney, Not a hypothesis of the potential for it. I'm looking for one cited circumstance that can be used for reference of the actual liklihood of this scenario.

All I'm asking if you to find one medical case. One case.

Every citation you've posted. Every link, every encyclopedic entry. All of them...include extenuating additional circumstances required for this to have happened. There exists not one case anywhere of this having happened before.

I don't see why a hazing ritual should be excluded. What makes that different than this? Voluntary vs. "involuntary"? That doesn't have anything to do with the body's reaction.

Secondly, an actual circumstance has NOTHING to do with any legal liability that may arise from this. All that has to be shown is the possibility of harm arising from this act--and that has assuredly been shown here. Even one instance of medical opinion, or the Chino incident, puts a reasonable person on notice that a warning should be issued to contestants.

That wasn't done, and for that, liability may attach.

 

[DeadElvis]

Ok, I have been reticent to chime in about this issue, but, I’ll make a quick exception.

Whether anyone on this list can find a case on the Internet is totally lacking relevance. The issues are:

1. Was this a known medical issue?, and
2. Did the Defendants have actual knowledge of same?

Now, I can’t tell you what is on the Internet. I haven’t looked, and don’t plan to. But, I can tell you that water intoxication is a well-known issue in the medical community. My wife, an MD educated at Harvard and Duke (those are good schools, btw), knew about it. In fact, when I mentioned the Strange case to my wife, she enumerated exactly what would have happened to Ms. Strange, and got it exactly right -- no prompting. She didn’t consult Wikipedia (why would she?), or Medline (what doctors use) or Lexis and/or Westlaw (what lawyers use), or anything else. It came right out of her head. And, that was just from her Internal Medicine training, which was 18 years ago (she doesn't specialize in Internal Medicine).

She also pointed out that Water Intoxication was not the only danger in this Forest Gump-esque promotion. There were others, but, we’ll save that for another day.

Now, did the Defendants have notice? That’s a question that’s up to the trier of fact, but, the tape we have all heard certainly implies such. There is also a legal question about whether such knowledge is required. This activity was unreasonably dangerous; it could be found they had a duty to investigate independent of any phone calls they may or may not have taken. But, that's a separate question. Did anyone notice the quick reference the lawyers made to Strict Liability in the Complaint? Hmmm...

Frankly, that’s the end of the discussion. Whether a group of guys with no letters after their names can’t find data on undocumented websites just really doesn’t matter, legally or morally.

So, perhaps it's time to move on?

DE

 

[cabradio]

I don't see why a hazing ritual should be excluded. What makes that different than this? Voluntary vs. "involuntary"? That doesn't have anything to do with the body's reaction.

The hazing incident also included having the person do calisthenics. That is why the incident cannot be compared. These contestants were at rest, not exercising. The exercising causes the sodium in electrolytes to be released from the body (through sweat) which can be a cause of hypodametria. When athletes replenish their fluids lost from exercising, they have been known to not replenish the sodium, which then causes water intoxication because there is not enough balance in the electrolytes.

 

[SirRoxalot]

One Cited Circumstance, and More

The key factor that a few of you repeat over and over is:

Not from someone, allegedly healthy, not taking drugs (prescription or recreational), not exercising or exerting themselves in any way that would cause loss of fluids through sweating. Mrs Strange was sitting still, drinking water over a three hour period. There is no record of a similar situation. None.

Unfortunately, you are WRONG in this contention. I have included link after link that provided CORRECT information, like:

LINK: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12053856&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

TEXT: An Army trainee developed acute water intoxication, hyponatremia, pulmonary edema, and fatal cerebral edema. This is the first report of a fatality related to urine drug testing. This resulted from supervised excessive water ingestion in an attempt to induce a sufficient urine specimen for substance abuse testing. To avoid a similar preventable death in the future, we make several recommendations. These include limiting the volume of ingested fluid to eight ounces every 30 to 45 minutes, not to exceed 40 ounces, and providing a relaxed, reassuring environment when obtaining urine specimens for substance abuse detection.

NOTE: An army trainee (i.e. in good health) DIED OF WATER INTOXICATION when he was directed to drink too much water in an attempt to induce a sufficient urine specimen for substance abuse testing. No exercise, no sweating. To prevent this from happening again, the recommendation is to limit "the volume of ingested fluid to eight ounces every 30 to 45 minutes, not to exceed 40 ounces". Let's see, if my calculations are correct, 2 gallons is 256 ounces, more than 6 times the limit recommended in this article. BTW, there is no indication that the army trainee actually used drugs. They were testing for drug use. He couldn't pee on request, they had him drink too much water, and he died of cerbral edema - swelling of the brain.

I believe that reasonable people would consider this case to be "one cited circumstance that can be used for reference of the actual liklihood of this scenario."

Furthermore:

LINK: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec12/ch155/ch155k.html#sec12-ch155-ch155k-345

TEXT: Hyponatremia

In hyponatremia, the level of sodium in the blood is too low. Hyponatremia occurs when sodium has been overdiluted in the body. Sodium can be overdiluted when people drink enormous amounts of water—as people with certain psychiatric disorders occasionally do—or when people who are hospitalized receive large amounts of water intravenously. In either case, the amount of fluid taken in exceeds the kidneys' capacity to eliminate the excess.

NOTE: No sweating. No exercising. Just drinking too much water. In this case, it wasn't a psychiatric disorder, it was a radio station contest. Still, there's sufficient evidence here that drinking too much water can cause water intoxication, which the people running the contest knew could be fatal. Elementary logic says that if a=b, and b=c, then a=c.


LINK: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec12/ch158/ch158c.html

TEXT: Overhydration occurs when the body takes in more water than it loses. The result is too much water and not enough sodium. Thus, overhydration generally results in low sodium levels in the blood (hyponatremia (see Minerals and Electrolytes: Hyponatremia). Usually, drinking large amounts of water does not cause overhydration if the pituitary gland, kidneys, liver, and heart are functioning normally. To exceed the body's ability to excrete water, an adult with normal kidney function would have to drink more than 2 gallons of water a day on a regular basis...

(Two paragraphs down in the same article) Brain cells are particularly susceptible to overhydration (as well as dehydration). When overhydration occurs slowly, brain cells have time to adapt, so few symptoms occur. When overhydration occurs quickly, confusion, seizures, or coma may develop.

NOTE: Drinking more than 2 gallons of water A DAY on a REGULAR BASIS can be a cause. Most reasonable people who are aware that people have died from overhydration would question the danger of drinking more than 2 gallons of water in a few hours, and do further research with a competent medical authority.

All of this is a repetition of material from previous posts. If ANYONE has a limited ability - or willingness - to comprehend, I think that MOST of us know who it is. Of course, that doesn't mean that a few of you will admit that you're WRONG. With that in mind, I'm done with this exercise in futility unless someone brings some new information to the table.

PS - I'd like to express appreciation for the educated input from Mssrs. Morgan & DeadElvis, Esq. I am fully aware that the courts deal with what's LEGAL, not necessarily what's RIGHT. In this case, I think that there is sufficient evidence to support that the radio station and at least some of the personnel bear both legal and moral liability for this woman's death.

 

[MikeRadknowski]

At this point, it might be appropriate to charge the jury (the posters and readers)to return a verdict and render judgement. It might be interesting to find out what the posters who have read the posts, footnotes, references and citations think.

What might the charges be, counselor DeadElvis?

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: One Cited Circumstance, and More

The key factor that a few of you repeat over and over is:

Not from someone, allegedly healthy, not taking drugs (prescription or recreational), not exercising or exerting themselves in any way that would cause loss of fluids through sweating. Mrs Strange was sitting still, drinking water over a three hour period. There is no record of a similar situation. None.

Unfortunately, you are WRONG in this contention. I have included link after link that provided CORRECT information, like:

LINK: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12053856&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

TEXT: An Army trainee developed acute water intoxication, hyponatremia, pulmonary edema, and fatal cerebral edema. This is the first report of a fatality related to urine drug testing. This resulted from supervised excessive water ingestion in an attempt to induce a sufficient urine specimen for substance abuse testing. To avoid a similar preventable death in the future, we make several recommendations. These include limiting the volume of ingested fluid to eight ounces every 30 to 45 minutes, not to exceed 40 ounces, and providing a relaxed, reassuring environment when obtaining urine specimens for substance abuse detection.

NOTE: An army trainee (i.e. in good health) DIED OF WATER INTOXICATION when he was directed to drink too much water in an attempt to induce a sufficient urine specimen for substance abuse testing. No exercise, no sweating. To prevent this from happening again, the recommendation is to limit "the volume of ingested fluid to eight ounces every 30 to 45 minutes, not to exceed 40 ounces". Let's see, if my calculations are correct, 2 gallons is 256 ounces, more than 6 times the limit recommended in this article. BTW, there is no indication that the army trainee actually used drugs. They were testing for drug use. He couldn't pee on request, they had him drink too much water, and he died of cerbral edema - swelling of the brain.

I believe that reasonable people would consider this case to be "one cited circumstance that can be used for reference of the actual liklihood of this scenario."

From the cited source:

"The misinterpretation of his symptoms as those of dehydration and heat injury led to continued efforts at oral hydration until catastrophic cerebral and pulmonary edema developed."

He was ordered to continue his intake by medical personnel. Forced ingestion. And by this citation, drinking a pint of water in less than a half hour can allegedly cause dangerous results. How come there's no warning label on water citing this alleged danger?

Furthermore:

In hyponatremia, the level of sodium in the blood is too low. Hyponatremia occurs when sodium has been overdiluted in the body. Sodium can be overdiluted when people drink enormous amounts of water—as people with certain psychiatric disorders occasionally do—or when people who are hospitalized receive large amounts of water intravenously. In either case, the amount of fluid taken in exceeds the kidneys' capacity to eliminate the excess.[/i]

NOTE: No sweating. No exercising. Just drinking too much water. In this case, it wasn't a psychiatric disorder, it was a radio station contest. Still, there's sufficient evidence here that drinking too much water can cause water intoxication, which the people running the contest knew could be fatal. Elementary logic says that if a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

Shows that it's theoretically possible. But, does not cite an actual case. People with psychiatric disorders are not normal, healthy adults. And intake of water intravenously is completely different than drinking water.

LINK: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec12/ch158/ch158c.html

TEXT: Overhydration occurs when the body takes in more water than it loses. The result is too much water and not enough sodium. Thus, overhydration generally results in low sodium levels in the blood (hyponatremia (see Minerals and Electrolytes: Hyponatremia). Usually, drinking large amounts of water does not cause overhydration if the pituitary gland, kidneys, liver, and heart are functioning normally. To exceed the body's ability to excrete water, an adult with normal kidney function would have to drink more than 2 gallons of water a day on a regular basis...

"Usually, drinking large amounts of water does not cause overhydration if the pituitary gland, kidneys, liver, and heart are functioning normally"

"NOTE: Drinking more than 2 gallons of water A DAY on a REGULAR BASIS can be a cause."

and

"To exceed the body's ability to excrete water, an adult with normal kidney function would have to drink more than 2 gallons of water a day on a regular basis..."

This was (as far as we know) a ONE-TIME event. AND we could then assume that the woman's kidneys were not functioning normally because by your own citation:" an adult with normal kidney function would have to drink more than 2 gallons of water a day on a regular basis... "

You're refuting your own claims.

I don't need to go any further. You cannot provide what I have asked.

Again, I'm not saying they weren't stupid. I'm saying they couldn't possibly have forseen this event.

Accidents are unforseeable, and no blame can be placed on the cause of a true accident. They are by definition:

An undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss;
Any event that happens without a deliberate plan, or cause.


This was an accidental death. Everything supports it.

 

[DeadElvis]

> What might the charges be, counselor DeadElvis?

That's a criminal law question?

Gosh, I don't know. What I know about criminal law could fit in a thimble, and you would have room left over. It ain't what I do.

Perhaps if I watch some reruns of Law & Order? I'll get back to you.

DE

 

[SirRoxalot]

Final Summation

He was ordered to continue his intake by medical personnel. Forced ingestion. And by this citation, drinking a pint of water in less than a half hour can allegedly cause dangerous results. How come there's no warning label on water citing this alleged danger?

It's not like they stuck a hose down his throat, is it? How is it forced - other than through coercion - kind of like offering a relatively rare, valuable prize? BTW, the citation recommends limiting water intake to 8 ounces every 30-45 minutes - with a maximum of 40 ounces - IF you're trying to induce somebody to pee. As other (already quoted) sources have discussed, the body can't process more than about a quart an hour, so you're not going to produce more urine even though you drink more water.

Wasn't this information easily obtained through a simple Google search? And, doesn't a theoretical possibility warrant further investigation from a qualified medical source?

Thanks for your input. MOST of us know who's right. I rest my case, and leave it to a jury of my peers to decide.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: Final Summation

It's not like they stuck a hose down his throat, is it? How is it forced - other than through coercion -

You don't know much about the military do you? Feel free to rent "A Few Good Men" and get back to me.

You choose to systematically dissect each post I make, and yet your own citations negate your contention.

It's all good. I've made my point. I stand by my opinion.

We'll see how this works out.

 

[cabradio]

I agree with Neanderpaul. It was a tragic accident with an unforeseen conclusion.

SirRoxalot says all the info was easily searchable through Google. Look at how many days and how many pages of Googling SirRoxalot has done, just to come up with the few sources HE sites (which doesn't even support his argument, but supports ours). The information was not easily accessible for "just anyone" to find. I've done my own searching, and the information was not easily accessible. Wikipedia doesn't count...there's too much misinformation on that site...I never use it.

In any case, the only way they could have had ANY clue would have been to consult a physician...but really, thinking backBEFORE the event, who would have thought to ask a doctor if drinking too much (and how much is too much) water would be DEADLY? It's just not a reasonable expectation.

But not having a medic on staff to monitor an ENDURANCE CONTEST, that is where I do find error in judgment on the Entercom staff. IMO the rest of the blame falls with Mrs Strange (rest her soul) for making a bad CHOICE in her life.

As far as the military example you have chosen to use...the trainee did not have a "choice". He was forced, he could not walk away anytime...unlike Mrs. Strange who had the ability to say "enough".

 

[Johnny Morgan]

But, again, folks--the fact that the contestant had the chance to walk away does not relieve the station, management, or hosts from their duty to warn of dangers or harm in the contest.

A reasonable person conducts research before they do a contest, and a reasonable person shuts down the contest once they have a hint of a problem (i.e., the caller who mentioned that this ingestion could cause a problem). Whether the caller was qualified or not means EVEN MORE that the contest should have been halted for more research and information.

As I said, I did a single Google search on water intoxication--and came up with two medical journal citations saying that death was possible from a massive ingestion of water in a short period of time. That means that (a) the station should have consulted a medical expert before doing this contest, and (b) that the station should have issued a warning.

The fact that this never happened before in a person at rest means NOTHING in terms of the duty owed to contestants.

So, the question still comes down to: why did the station not issue a warning to the contestants? That question has not been answered publicly.

 

[Neanderpaul]

But, again, folks--the fact that the contestant had the chance to walk away does not relieve the station, management, or hosts from their duty to warn of dangers or harm in the contest.

A reasonable person conducts research before they do a contest, and a reasonable person shuts down the contest once they have a hint of a problem (i.e., the caller who mentioned that this ingestion could cause a problem). Whether the caller was qualified or not means EVEN MORE that the contest should have been halted for more research and information.

And a reasonable person withdraws from any event that might be potentially life-threatening upon being made aware.

As I said, I did a single Google search on water intoxication--and came up with two medical journal citations saying that death was possible from a massive ingestion of water in a short period of time. That means that (a) the station should have consulted a medical expert before doing this contest, and (b) that the station should have issued a warning.

Possible. Not likely. It is possible that you'll have a food reaction to an ingredient in your next Togo's sandwich. Does Togo's have to tell you every ingredient in their sandwhiches? It is possible that you could die in your car on the way to work tomorrow due to carbon monoxide poisoning if you don't open a window. Does the car manufacturer explain that this could happen?

The fact that this never happened before in a person at rest means NOTHING in terms of the duty owed to contestants.

It does if there's never been a point of reference. You can't know if this is likely if there's no information available to support the theory.

So, the question still comes down to: why did the station not issue a warning to the contestants? That question has not been answered publicly.

I believe they were warned when the phrase (paraphrasing) "yeah..someone could die from this..perhaps we should've done a little more research"

At that point...a reasonable person makes a rational, voluntary decision whether or not to continue. AND...assuming she did not hear this information, as some have claimed...their family and friends had ample opportunity to warn them once this potential was exposed.

 

[RealTime]

I love how neanderpol cites a movie to show everyone how the military really is. Movies aren't real life, dude.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Juris Prudence

We keep covering the same ground over and over. Final summations are over. It's now in the hands of the jury. Please indicate your vote:

1) "It's mostly the contestant's fault."

2) "It's mostly the radio station's fault."

3) "It's nobody's fault, just a terrible accident."

I vote for #2 - "It's mostly the radio station's fault."

 

[DeadElvis]

I don't "vote," I follow the Law. And, the Law is going to be pretty clear here.

It has been fun, though, watching those without medical training or legal training arguing law and medicine. Keep it coming!

DE

 

[cabradio]

I don't "vote," I follow the Law. And, the Law is going to be pretty clear here.

It has been fun, though, watching those without medical training or legal training arguing law and medicine. Keep it coming!

DE

What the "law" ultimately decides, is not really relevant to the discussion (yet...there will probably be more discussion after the case is over), because we are discussing what we believe should be the outcome. We all understand that there are details we don't know that will be weighed, and we understand the law looks at the situation differently. We are looking at it from an emotional point of view, not a legal point of view. We know the "decision" won't be based on our opinions here.

I've just been giving my layman's interpretation of the medical facts as I see them. I am not expecting to be considered an expert, if that is what you are getting at. And if we weren't discussing it...what entertainment value would you get?

 

[Neanderpaul]

I love how neanderpol cites a movie to show everyone how the military really is. Movies aren't real life, dude.

No. The military in real life is far more harsh than any movie has portrayed.

If you think a recruit has the option to refuse an assignment in the military...

Nevermind. This is tangential to the discussion.

PS..Nice use of the alternate spelling. Guess I know you huh?