Was the "hold your wee for a wii" radio contest ethical?

Question

Personally I think if warned correctly (by the people who ran the contest) or if taken to the hospital the lady could have survived. http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/ten-fired-after-radio-contest-tragedy/20070117182009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

But I mean is knowingly running a fatal contest and failing to warn the contestants because they signed a paper? Signing a paper doesn't mean you shouldn't get told warnings and stuff.

Answer 1

No, it was unethical and it was criminal. They may have got signed releases so that they can't be sued but that shouldn't stop the authorities from filing criminal charges.

Answer 2

Here is what I think. I think that there is a certain level of responsibility for both parts. Any contest where a person's life can be jeapordized should not exist. The radio station had a responsibility to do some more research. The contestant also had some responsibility. She herself should have also done some research. Who should be to blame? The radio station should never have let the contest occur. If your friend was drowning, and you could reach them, but they were in a contest to see how long they could hold their breath underwater, wouldn't you try to help them?, or let them die painfully? It is a tragedy, as my friend Anthony Cumia said, "Those poor kids will have to go through their whole life with people asking, How'd your parents die?" Thats terrible I'm sorry! Hopefully the kids will get a huuuge settlement. I know it can't bring back their mom, but maybe they can buy their own WII and the radio station.

Answer 3

Most people don't realize that water intoxication can be fatal. BUT how in the world could anyone assume that drinking massive amounts of water and then not peeing could be good for you?
I think it's a two-fold fault - fault of the company for failing to realize that they were indeed putting people at risk, and fault of the contestant for not researching the risks before they undertook such an assinine contest.
For example - if they had a contest that said sit in a tub of poisonous snakes they would have said "snakes are poisonous and they can kill you".....if the person then said "hey Bubba I want to sit in the snakes!!" and then dies - who fault is that?
Bubba the radio host for having contest or dimwit the contestant for sitting in the snakes? Both are at fault for doing something stupid!

I truly do not think this contest was thought out all that well and the potential deadly effects of water were not researched. Then again - obviously the contestant didn't research any of that the either. We can only be held accountable for what we do to our own bodies.

Answer 4

I have read a ton of news articles and listened to the radio clips that are available from the Sacramento Bee.

Just from the audio clips (I am paraphrasing here but if you listen to the audio you can see I am not far off):
1. Before the contest starts, one of the DJs says can't you die of water poisoning? The other DJ blows her off. They make reference to "that college kid" - a fraternity initiate died of water poisoning during hazing at a university less than 100 miles from Sacramento less than 2 years ago (MAJOR story - four frat boys were convicted of involuntary manslaughter). One of the DJs says, oh he was doing other stuff...
2. At least one person (identifying herself as a nurse) called in to say that this could cause the contestants to get sick and die. One of the DJs says they know already, and another DJ says the contestants signed releases so it's okay. The female DJ says maybe we should have researched this. One of the DJs says, well they'll throw up first so they won't die (not true...throwing up doesn't necessarily save you...and peeing won't save you necessarily either).

In addition, from all accounts that I read:
- the contestants were put in a room where they could NOT hear the radio show; i.e. they were not able to hear the caller saying they could die, and they did not hear the DJs joking about the risks
- there were no medical staff on hand
- no medical assistance was offered to those who got sick (vomiting, headache, nausea, lightheadedness etc being symptoms)

Comparisons to Fear Factor are unfair - I am quite certain that Fear Factor researches the dangers of the stunts and ingestion of noxious items. They always have medical staff right there (think Survivor when buddy fell into the fire). They post disclaimers saying Folks - do NOT try this at home! The radio station apparently did none of this.

To those who say signing a waiver signs away all your rights, and that it was the woman's responsibility to take care of herself, know the risks etc:
- I didn't know the risks of water intoxication (I don't consider myself uneducated as I am completing my Masters degree)
- My boss (a full professor, PhD and all) didn't know about water intoxication until after the death of the frat kid in 2005
- Many other people I have asked don't realize what water intoxication actually is.
- Water intoxication makes the person delusional, they are not capable of making rational decisions. Think - drunk not on alcohol but on water. At some point, even if they want to drink more, someone involved in the contest should have thought, hey she is in pain and a bit wonky, maybe we should have her checked out medically. She even said she was feeling lightheaded.
- A not quite equivalent example is: what if you hold a competition for people to dive into a lake of the edge off a pier or a boat. People know generally that yes you could break your neck if it is too shallow, or get some other kind of serious injury. The contest holders don't check to see if the lake is deep enough, if there is anything there that contestants could dive headfirst into ie sharp rocks, and there are no lifeguards or medical personnel on hand. Do the contest holders have no responsibility if an expert diver jumps in, hits their head and drowns because a waiver was signed and he/she didn't check out the lake first?
- The waiver means nothing if the radio station knew the risks, did not inform the contestants and egged them on knowing the risks. It becomes clear when the contestant is interviewed during the contest and she says her head hurts etc - an intern says that is the water telling her to throw up - that she doesn't realize the risks. I think it quite obvious that if she knew you could die by doing this, she wouldn't have done it. Add that to the fact that the contestants couldn't hear all the talk about how dangerous it is...
- A not quite equivalent example: they hold a contest to
- Maybe she should have checked into the dangers, but obviously since she didn't (and bear in mind that most people would probably assume if a radio station is endorsing the contest then it must be safe, regardless of whether there is a waiver or not)... there is no reason in the world why the radio staff should have hidden the potential fatal consequences.

Many of the other contestants have said they were all sick for a day after the contest - throwing up, passing out, etc. One of the contestants said they left a woman lying on the floor for an hour, and that the radio station staff in the room continued to heckle the woman lying on the floor.

Potentially, had the woman gotten medical assistance after the contest was over or had their been medical staff on hand to supervise, she would have gotten treatment in time to prevent her death.

I think it extremely unfortunate that someone died in this contest. I think it's worse that lots of people say that the radio station has absolutely no responsibility in the matter. I disagree and think that the radio station is definitely responsible for what happened.

Interesting sources:
wikipedia - hyperhydration, Matt Carrington (frat boy who died)
Sacramento Bee - audio clip of contest radio show
Tons of news reports if you google "wee for a wii"

Answer 5

No, definitely not ethical and I'd say probably criminally reckless. This is not more ethical than offering 10 million dollars for someone to play Russian roulette. It is criminal behavior.

There is definitely a responsibility on the part of the radio station to have some knowledgeable supervision of these type events. This is like the home version of "Fear Factor" people who have no idea what they are doing, coming up with stunts. A certain level of professional oversight should be expected which the radio station did not provide.

They seemed to know of the potential dangers...merely obtaining a signed release does not clear the station or its employees.

Answer 6

I do not think it was ethical. It was no different from holding a drinking contest. Anyone with half a brain knows that drinking too much water can kill you. The radio station made a terrible decision and they will probably be held liable both criminally and in tort in spite of the waiver. A waiver cannot protect you from everything.

Answer 7

I don't know about "unethical". It was stupid and probably rises to the level of neglience. While people may have signed a waiver, that waiver may have been defective and/or insufficient. If so, it would leave the station and its owners open to a big fat lawsuit! And they certainly deserved to be sued. Why on earth would you run such a contest and not have a medic on hand!?

Answer 8

I think they should have researched the dangers of what they were doing alot better before going through with the contest! I mean, it's common sense that holding it in when you have to go can cause damage. I think that they were willfully neglagent, and extremely stupid!

Answer 9

Any person who ignores their bodies warnings when things go wrong is totally deserving of any thing that befalls them.

If the person is that motivated by greed that they would die then they probably deserved to..its one of the seven deadly sins.

At least this contest didnt take the p iss

Answer 10

I think it was perfectly fine. There's no accounting for some peoples stupidity.
Too much water = water intoxication
Simple