Posted on 01/18/2007 10:47:09 AM PST by GoldCountryRedneck
Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness assigned two homicide detectives Wednesday to investigate the apparent water-intoxication death of a Rancho Cordova woman who competed in a radio-station stunt to win a Nintendo gaming console.
Jennifer Strange (deceased), her husband, and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I am just so glad you said that.
For here I sit arguing with husband. He says this woman agreed to drink it. So I must admit....
I am a 56 year old woman and considered fairly smart.
I had no idea drinking too much water like that could kill you. I think I could have entered a contest like this, not that I can imagine any scenario where I'd do such a thing but go with me, I would enter a contest like this, given the right incentive, and be blissfully unaware that drinking a lot of water can kill you.
Now they have a tape of this guy yukking it up and saying that "we got waivers" or some such...folks, this is just so callous.
I'm on a jury, follow me here. That woman's kids are in the courtoom, all sad eyed. I hear this tape of that DJ laffing and audaciously saying he's not in trouble...hey, he got waivers!
I'd award that woman's family millions. Seriously.
Tell me....pretend you're on that jury.....
The radio station should have checked this out with medical authorities. They're not firing employees by the dozens for no reason...this is bad shit.
Nonsense. Everyone doesn't have to become a victim in order for something to be prosecutable.
Do wonder for the 'hype' of this contest; beyond the station apparently not consulting a physician as to the safety here. ..did ANY Doctor. . .team physician. . .'someone who knows better'. . .call the station and issue a warning out of concern here?
And wonder as well, if not. . .then 'why not'?
According to reports, there were several calls, including a nurse, to the station , but the DJ's laughed it off... "We have a waiver, it's OK"
You would think that when she'd called in sick, presumably explaining why (no pointing try to hide what had just been broadcast all over the area), SOMEBODY there would have sounded the alarm.
The station needs to loose its license and the DJ's need to pull jail time
That's how it always happens. It takes time for the huge amount of water that's entered the digestive tract to migrate around the body and into the cells which will be destroyed by it. At first the body tries to use its natural mechanisms to deal with the overload, and that delays the effects for a while, but with this amount of water it will often be unable to keep up. The exact amount it will take to kill someone is not easy to determine in advance, because various factors affect the equation, the chief one being the state of hydration and electrolyte levels at the beginning. Popping a few salt tablets at the beginning of the contest could make a huge difference in what the lethal dose would be, but there's still a limit.
Hopefully this incident will get enough publicity that FINALLY everybody who doesn't keep their head firmly buried in sand will wake up to this basic fact. There have already been at least 2 cases of children being killed by forced water drinking "therapy" recommended by quack behavioral therapists (with the Utah one being fairly recent and very widely publicized), a recent fraternity hazing case where a participant died from excessive water drinking, and several cases of marathon runners dying from drinking too much water (and that was without anyone pressuring them to keep drinking when it was making them uncomfortable, just overzealous following of advice "make sure and drink enough water to avoid dehydration").
"Authorities decided to pursue the investigation after listening to a tape of the Jan. 12 "Morning Rave" show that was obtained by The Sacramento Bee. On the tape, disc jockeys can be heard joking about the possible dangers of consuming too much water. They even alluded to a Chico State University student who died during a hazing stunt in 2005 after drinking large amounts of water. "
Sounds like the DJs knew the danger.
The issue it the large consumption of water in a short time, NOT if it was voluntary or forced.
I am saying that the DJs knew it was dangerous and did not have medical personnel available to monitor the health of the patients. Their main failure came after the contest was over and not ensuring the contestants were medically screened to determine if they needed to be sent to a hospital.
Thanks. . .
Despite warnings; and we do not know how exactly how they were framed; am thinking with 'group think/consent and with authority of a waiver; hindsight is probably the only thing left. . .variation of the warnings that if you find yourself in trouble; the more people around; the greater your chances are; of not being helped.
Am still curious as to the 'intern' comment; and whether this was medical.. .or radio station employee. (or if their was a Doctor around/on-call for this. . .of if she called one)
Would think all involved; including signee for waiver would be in jeopardy.
A whole lot of assuming going on. ..including of course, on behalf of he participants. . .
Damn! I entered a pie-eating (chocolate cream) contest in college. Had a bad case of zits for at least a week after that.
Think I can sue for damages, 30 years after the fact? There should be no statute of limitations for the trauma caused by a bad case of zits.
Not to me, considering the sources were a) a caller who claimed to be a nurse and b) a story of a student who was forced to drink (how much?) water.
Now, if you want to say the DJs were ignorant of the danger and should have known better, that is something I can agree with. But knew the danger? C'mon.
Perhaps there should be bumper stickers for cases like yours.
FRegards,
No, I'm not. I'm saying that for policy reasons, we require manufacturers or purveyors of goods and services to disclose warnings because that imposes the least amount of cost on society. You simply cannot argue with this--indeed, you admit that your policy failed with my example of prescription drugs--but yet, at the same time, you say that we should continue to embrace bad policy.
What you are saying is utterly irrational. Anyway, it's a meaningless debate. This issue has been settled a hundred years ago and it's not going to be reargued anytime soon.
I said the policy failed with prescription drugs. You're the one who drew the ridiculous analogy between required prescription drugs and voluntary behavior at an amusement park. Since you think it's analogous, I proposed a similar solution.
"What you are saying is utterly irrational."
Me? What about you? You're the one suggesting the ride operator inform the public that his ride may cause seizures in order to avoid liability.
I'm saying what about heart attacks? Strokes? Dizziness? Vomiting? Nosebleeds? Bruising? Internal organ damage? Where do you stop? Why did you stop with seizures?
That's your solution?
And I can sue the park out of existence (as some are proposing for this radio station) if I die of something not on that list, like a stroke? And according to you, I can sue even if I have had strokes in the past.
Well, screw the inheritance for the kids -- I'm spending it all. Then when I'm 80 years old and broke, I'm going to Great America and hop on all the "E" rides! Let my kids sue for their "inheritance"!
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.