Posted on 01/18/2007 5:09:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge
I understand the point, but you're missing the issue. DJs get calls from people from all walks of life. Some are the genuine article, some aren't - they don't know whom to believe and cannot be held liable for the content of the information.
I can rell you that I'm a climatologist and that all the fossil fuels that are being burned to keep your computer on the Internet are contributing to Global Warming, but it doesn't make any of it true. You can choose to believe that GW is caused by substances such as fossil fuels, or greenhouse gases, or cows farting in New Zealand. The fact is that, depending on your beliefs, it doesn't make any of it true. A court might allow one of the attorneys to introduce this as "evidence", but it doesn't make any of it binding on either the DJs or the station.
However, had there been a nurse in the studio during the contest, the whole story would be substantially different. But, as far as we know, that was not the case.
By the way, I'm the Surgeon-General of the United States. Don't smoke and practice safe sex and . . . . . stuff like that.
Their response to a warning that what they're doing will, or could result in death does count. What matters is the rational content of the warning. It doesn't matter if the caller was a construction worker.
Regarding something like global warming, it doesn't matter how they respond, because there's no direct risk of injury, or death.
Re: GW
"The fact is that, depending on your beliefs, it doesn't make any of it true."
The mechanism is real. Otherwise, it's the magnitude of the effect that's important. The magnitude of the effect is small an inconsequential. What anyone in particular believes is irrelevant, regardless of credentials. It's the facts that matter.
I believe that a court of law will only accept such a warning as credible if it comes from an industry professional such as a doctor, registered nurse, licensed ME, etc. I beleive that a court would take such information under advisement if it comes from an orderly, and it would make note of the fact that a warning was provided by a construction worker but, under those conditions, since neither individual is considered an industry professional, such information content does not impose an obligation on the individual receiving the warning to act on it. In those situations, the warnings are considered opinions rather than medical fact. An, an opinion is what the DJs offered when they told the deceased that they didn't think her headache was important. The content only has meaning when such warning is issued by an individual who can prove to a court that they are qualified by profession to issue such information on the basis of proven medical fact.
And, the term "medical fact" has a myriad of interpretations in the medical profession. Medical fact tends to be tempered by both known and unknown pre-existing conditions. A "normal" person with no pre-existing conditions may be able to tolerate drinking 2 gallons of water (despite the potential for medical damage later) far better than someone who is diabetic or has a heart or blood condition. It's all a matter of degree.
Look, I know that you want to punish someone for this incident, and, in a way, I understand your point. But the fact remains that the deceased had the option of participating in the contest or not. And, as a participant, she has an obligation for her own health, safety and well-being. If you believe that she was blameless in contributing to or causing her own death, then you have to believe that humans are incapable of being responsible for themselves. That means that when you get out of bed in the morning, you don't get dressed until the weather guesser tells you exactly what to wear. And you don't eat or drink anything until the radio or TV nutritionist tells you exactly what you should eat or drink. And you don't go out of the house until someone in authority tells you that you have to go to work, school or the store. Etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I don't believe that you think any of those things, otherwise you'd have thrown the HillaryCare argument in just to stir things up.
Let's hope you never walk into any emergency room as 99% of the cases arre reviewed by people who have nothing more than a passing knowlege of your history.
You can disagree with me all you want but you'd still be wrong. You're stating it as fact that you're right when you know deep down inside that's just your opinion. I'm stating what the numerous professionals I know tell me regarding diagnostic medicine.
If a woman who just drank 2 gallons of water complains of symptoms consist with acute intoxication any paramedic or EMT would know what the hell is happening.
They dismissed someone who claimed to be an expert when they decidedly weren't. If I logged in here and said I was having shortness of breath and arm pains and a poster claimed to be a doctor and told me that my symptoms were serious I wouldn't blow it off. No one in a position of responsibility would.
These guys screwed up.
As I said, Bogey, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I've heard of radio contests in my city where people have to sit in a car for a long time to win it. I assume they get short bathroom breaks. But even so now we learn that sitting for hours and much less days, can lead to blood clots in the legs. So those contests are dangerous, too. Maybe radio stations should stick to mental games.
No. The court is only concerned with the response to the warning, not the truth of the warning itself. The truth of the warning itself is evidenced by the death that resulted after the warning was brushed off. The court doesn't care if a plumber gave it. What they'll be looking at is the response. Note, they never challenged the nurses creds, they responded with remarks about how they could care less.
" such information content does not impose an obligation on the individual receiving the warning to act on it."
It requires the person warned to have a valid reason not to be concerned. Saying they don't care and flying a waiver, is not a valid response.
"In those situations, the warnings are considered opinions rather than medical fact."
Failure to demonstate due concern is not an option.
"An, an opinion is what the DJs offered when they told the deceased that they didn't think her headache was important. "
The DJs aren't entitled to give medical advice. They were doing so in this case. Note, the woman was sick and they explained to her what was happening. They were obviously wrong, because they said, "she was drowning". The obligation of a reasonable person in this case is to advise that they see a doc. Otherwise the act of doing what a prudent person would do is negligence. That is the basis of a large number of lawsuits. Person is ill, another diagnoses and recomends treatment. Not against the law, unless $s are taken in consideration, but it is an act of negligence, which can be the basis for a lawsuit.
"And, the term "medical fact" has a myriad of interpretations in the medical profession."
Legal facts are what matter here. Here, the law will be concerned with a warning and the response to that warning, as above.
"If you believe that she was blameless in contributing to or causing her own death, then you have to believe that humans are incapable of being responsible for themselves."
She dropped when she got sick, which was already too late. It's not reasonable to assume folks would be aware of the dangers here. It is reasonable to make sure that when you involve other people, that you do not injure them. That means you'll have to ask someone who knows. Then you take reasonable action to provide for their safety when their involved in the activity you dreamed up.
It really doesn't matter what you do personally. When you involve other people in any activity, then you must take care that no injury, or death results. When someone shows up for an event, the one putting on and inviting those to participate in that event has the duty to consider what could happen and how to prevent injury and death, especially when the nature of the event is deadly and it involves human life. That does not mean nanny care, it means reasonable care and true rational advisement. It's definitely not lawful to not care, as was demonstrated by the DJs.
"Frankly, I don't believe that you think any of those things"
I am probably one of the biggest risk takers, according to other people, in the country. When I buy something, one of the first things I do is to remove all the GD safety features, if I so desire. I do not use seat belts, airbags, helmets, whatever, unless I want to. I do not appreciate nannies whatsoever, I am not a nanny and do not support nannism whatsoever. I never involve other people in real risk whatsoever. In real life, no one has ever been injured, or killed on my watch. I would have never held this contest, because I would have looked into it first and determined, that it was simply a contest that must result in death, or approch it.
Disagree all you want but fact are facts and disagreeing with them just makes you stubborn.
A waitress: I don't know. Get thee to a doctor!
As I said, Bogey, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not being stubborn, I'm being polite and expressing my opinion.
I assume the winner must of eaten a lot of salty foods. I've eaten foods with lots of salt, which makes me want to drink a lot of water. Too much water causes electrolyte inbalance and that can kill you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.