Quebec girl clings to life after trying ecstasy (updated 2/22/2006)

[Bare_head]

Montreal girl, 13, dies after taking ecstasy during sleepover

Last Updated Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:33:06 EST
CBC News

A 13-year-old girl from Rigaud, west of Montreal, died in hospital Monday afternoon after taking the drug ecstasy.

Police say the girl and a friend were at a sleepover Saturday night in Hudson when they started talking about taking ecstasy. They say the two curious teens called a 16-year-old friend and went over to his place to get the drug.

Sûreté du Québec spokeswoman Chantal Mackels said the boy's parents weren't home at the time.

When the girls returned to Hudson, Mackels said in an interview Monday, the 13-year-old became very ill.

"One of them really felt like nauseous and not well and so the mother was advised. The mother saw the state of the child and she called 911," Mackels said.

An ambulance carried her to a local hospital, where she was stabilized before being transferred to Montreal Children's Hospital.

Mackels said it's not clear why only one of the girls became sick and died, given that both took equal amounts of the powerful stimulant and hallucinatory drug.

"For children that want to experiment with drugs, it's always a bad idea, especially if it's in a powder or a pill, because you don't know what was put in there by whom and when it was done, and the concentration of whatever you're taking."

A 16-year-old boy appeared in court Monday afternoon on drug-related charges.

Mackels said he could face further charges because of the girl's death.

Link

If the drug was legalised and controlled then maybe we would know what exactly was in these pills and the concentration of the drug inside of the pill

 

[lifeisforliving]

Well they must intent to give a toxicology report.. How can a person be guilty of this offense without confirmation that the pill indeed did contain a bad chemical?

 

[bigmac74]

any predictions on what could be the problem? DXM/MDMA combo maybe?

 

[TheDEA.org]

Young girl, small dose, lapses into a coma, brain dead, taken off life support....


Almost certainly a hyponatremia (water intoxication) death. Thank your friendly neighborhood drug warrior for opposing harm-reduction education about dangers like this.

How many more times does this story have to replay itself before we try something different?

 

[JeW BaLLs]

Did I miss something here? I mean, I didnt read anything about being taken off of life support. I find it humorous how much people will defend the safety of drug use. I dont understand why people cant just say " damn , she died from taking a drug" instead of oh it has to be this, it has to be that, anything but my dear drugs, they have never done anything to harm me, so they couldnt have possilby harmed her.

Just face it dude, drugs cause some bad things to happen, they are relativly safe if you are an educated adult, but no matter what DRUGS CAN CAUSE BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. Maybe if the kid would have thought about what she was doing before she did it things would have worked out better, but that certainly isnt the governments drug policy to blame. I mean, we all caught on to the harm reduction deal, why didnt she? The government didnt teach me to be a safer drug user, why did I survive. The problem is that people refuse to listen to the government and realise that drugs can be dangerous. The government cant possibly be to blame for this.

It is not the governments fault that the girl didnt listen to their warnings.

And what makes you so certain that kids will listen to harm reduction if it were preached by the government?

Then when bad shit happens to kids who were taught the propper way to take drugs is it still gonna be blamed on the government? The answer to that question is YES.

 

[Diacetylus]

^

I find it humorous how much people will defend the safety of drug use. I dont understand why people cant just say " damn , she died from taking a drug" instead of oh it has to be this, it has to be that, anything but my dear drugs, they have never done anything to harm me, so they couldnt have possilby harmed her.

I totally agree. Alot of people here seem to be oblivious to how potentially dangerous MDMA can be.
If it were Heroin overdose, there would be no surprise. But, when an article points out the dangers of using ecstasy, people become defensive for it.

MDMA is dangerous. All drugs are dangerous. Even if it were the water that was responsible for her death, if it weren't for the MDMA in her body, she wouldn't have drank so much water and suffered from hyponotremia.

 

[funknsoul1]

She very well may have died from taking a drug. She very well may have died completely from the ecstasy.

However, the article makes it obvious that the actual drugs she consumed are unknown. Nobody is trying to defend their precious drugs out of denial or delusion. We are just sick of seeing conclusions being printed, tainting the minds of the people, when the conclusions are based in very poor investigation. -- The truth is that if we just agree with what they throw at us, we will keep being lied to. Demanding at least the full procedure NEEDED to obtain the truth is necessary before believing something.

Yes, mdma can potentially be dangerous. I wouldn't say it wasn't the cause of her death. I would say, however, that based on this report, none of us can tell -- nobody can for sure.

--You have to see the benefit from jumping to conclusions here -- hyponotremia isn't exactly a sensational story.. but drugs, especially in a negative light, always seems to be. It definitely has never been below people, even highly respected people, to completely fabricate things.

There is just a lot of reason to question anything that doesn't add up quite right. I agree with you that those who outright just say it wasn't the pill at all are perhaps in denial.. but saying it very well might not have been is incredibly viable.

 

[xRealRollzOnlyx]

She very well may have died from taking a drug. She very well may have died completely from the ecstasy.

However, the article makes it obvious that the actual drugs she consumed are unknown. Nobody is trying to defend their precious drugs out of denial or delusion. We are just sick of seeing conclusions being printed, tainting the minds of the people, when the conclusions are based in very poor investigation. -- The truth is that if we just agree with what they throw at us, we will keep being lied to. Demanding at least the full procedure NEEDED to obtain the truth is necessary before believing something.

Yes, mdma can potentially be dangerous. I wouldn't say it wasn't the cause of her death. I would say, however, that based on this report, none of us can tell -- nobody can for sure.

--You have to see the benefit from jumping to conclusions here -- hyponotremia isn't exactly a sensational story.. but drugs, especially in a negative light, always seems to be. It definitely has never been below people, even highly respected people, to completely fabricate things.

There is just a lot of reason to question anything that doesn't add up quite right. I agree with you that those who outright just say it wasn't the pill at all are perhaps in denial.. but saying it very well might not have been is incredibly viable.

I absolutely agree. In this case and in all other instances of hearsay we must persist in our search for the truth. I am very willing to accept the fact that MDMA caused this young girl to die; if this can in fact be established evidentially.

As rational, reasonable, and reflective beings we can settle for nothing less than the truth. The point is, we DON'T KNOW what *caused* her death as of yet. Though I am just as willing to accept death by MDMA as I am hyponatremia, it's all just speculation at this point.

 

[bigmac74]

It is not the governments fault that the girl didnt listen to their warnings.

And what makes you so certain that kids will listen to harm reduction if it were preached by the government?

Then when bad shit happens to kids who were taught the propper way to take drugs is it still gonna be blamed on the government? The answer to that question is YES.

Actually, there are many deaths associated with LEGAL drugs and the government doesn't get blamed for that, the people that take them do (of course there isn't really any blame as the media don't care). Alcohol and nicotine (in the form of tobacco) are the most common of these.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Tobacco killed 400,000 people in the U.S. alone last year.

The message the government is getting out is:

Don't buy their drugs, buy ours!

 

[Eyeronie]

I dont understand why people cant just say " damn , she died from taking a drug"

Although this might be one way of describing what happened, I think the reason people don't want to leave it at that is because it's too vague and leads people to make unfounded generalizations about drug use, like "just say no". Educating ourselves about drug use means taking it a step farther than just "she died from taking a drug".

I'm sure the bluelight crowd as much as anyone realizes the potential harm from MDMA. I'm sure most of the people posting in this thread realize that a certain percentage of people that take MDMA are going to die for a variety of different reasons. They also know, as should you, that the odds of this happening are literally one in a million or worse - I've heard somewhere driving isn't even as safe statistically. So when it does happen, people want to know why! Heroin OD's are better understood and FAR more common.

Dea.org is right, there's a pattern here and anyone who keeps up on DITM can see it. Leah Betts, the girl from colorado, another girl from Michigan, the 14 year old from Belmont, California, now this. There is a pattern of young girls overdosing on ecstasy, and if water intoxication is the common thread here people need to know this and it needs to be reported as such so people know the danger!

Telling these girls, "drugs can kill you sometimes" isn't going to work if they're seeing everyone they know roll with little consequence.

If we knew better what was happening and could say, "don't drink more than X amount of water" or "females below a certain age or body weight shouldn't consume ecstasy" there's a much better chance some of these girls might listen!!!!!

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

The surgeon general puts warnings on all of the cigarettes sold yet people continue to suffer the consequences.

Do you think a warning is really going to deter use or deter problems that could have been prevented through harm reduction?

It seems like illegality of drugs actually increase awareness about the dangers whereas things that are legal (e.g. tobacco, alcohol) decreases the awareness about the dangers since people associate 'legal' with 'safe.'

This is a serious question, by the way.

 

[lifeisforliving]

The surgeon general puts warnings on all of the cigarettes sold yet people continue to suffer the consequences.

Do you think a warning is really going to deter use or deter problems that could have been prevented through harm reduction?

It seems like illegality of drugs actually increase awareness about the dangers whereas things that are legal (e.g. tobacco, alcohol) decreases the awareness about the dangers since people associate 'legal' with 'safe.'

Well no, I don't believe that. The massive increase in cigarette smoking during the 50's and 60's is the main weight behind current usage. Since cigarette smoke has been shown to cause so much damage we are seeing declines of usage in many areas. Here in Ontario, for example, smoking is pretty much outlawed in most public places, even bars soon.

Early educaiton is the key - before they start. In elementary school, in high school etc.

I also find it a little ironic that you suggest such an idea from a news item about a girl who most likely wasn't educated and didn't know how to prevent reactions such as hyponatremia.

Knowledge is better than ignorance. People may still choose to be self-destructive or take risks, but at least they should be properly informed of the risks.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I was merely rambling and making generalisations.

I personally feel that having as much possible information about everything can do more harm than good.

Obviously, none of us would be alive right now if we didn't practice some sort of harm reduction in our lives.

Learning from our mistakes isn't the best approach to situations. Instead, we should try to learn BEFORE we make the mistake.

Obviously, dying isn't a mistake that you can personally learn from.

 

[TheDEA.org]

I didnt read anything about being taken off of life support.

They didn't specify it, but that's the typical sequence of events in hyponatremia deaths, and probably what happened here.

I dont understand why people cant just say " damn , she died from taking a drug" instead of oh it has to be this, it has to be that, anything but my dear drugs, they have never done anything to harm me, so they couldnt have possilby harmed her.

This pattern of symptoms/events is very well known. I don't mean 'oh, don't blame the drugs, it might have been something else.' I mean that there is little chance that this death was caused by drug toxicity.

Just face it dude, drugs cause some bad things to happen, they are relativly safe if you are an educated adult, but no matter what DRUGS CAN CAUSE BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN.

Quite true. But most of the dangers of drugs (legal or illegal) are avoidable through knowledge and restraint.

I mean, we all caught on to the harm reduction deal, why didnt she?

We're talking about a 13 year-old girl. She should never had access to drugs, but guess what? There aren't any age limits on buying something that's already illegal.

The government didnt teach me to be a safer drug user, why did I survive.

Almost everybody does survive; even the ignorant and irresponsible users. But the ones that do die were almost always ignorant/irresponsible.

The problem is that people refuse to listen to the government and realise that drugs can be dangerous.

The problem is that the government threw away all of its credibility by trying to scare people away from drugs with grossly exaggerated claims of the dangers they posed. Governments don't offer drug education; they offer anti-drug propaganda. Harm reduction efforts need to reach the at-risk people, not just preach to the choir.

The government cant possibly be to blame for this.

They have time and time again tried to cover up the true cause of hyponatremia deaths because they wanted anti-drug poster children. If the government tried to cover up the dangers of driving while drunk, wouldn't you accuse them of negligence?

It is not the governments fault that the girl didnt listen to their warnings.

What warnings? Since when has the government warned young people about hyponatremia?

And what makes you so certain that kids will listen to harm reduction if it were preached by the government?

Because kids can tell the difference between advice designed to help you and threats designed to manipulate you.

Then when bad shit happens to kids who were taught the propper way to take drugs is it still gonna be blamed on the government? The answer to that question is YES.

Virtually all the 'bad things' that happen to people when they take drugs are their own fault. Drugs don't randomly strike people down like bolts of lightening from a clear blue sky; somebody who drops dead after twenty pills and half a gram of speed earned his death. If somebody has been informed of the specific risks (not just a nebulous 'drugs are bad, mmmmkay?') and still uses drugs irresponsibly, it's on their own head if it ends badly for them.

 

[JeW BaLLs]

I think you have made some major assumptions in your response to my post.

The problem is that the government threw away all of its credibility by trying to scare people away from drugs with grossly exaggerated claims of the dangers they posed. Governments don't offer drug education; they offer anti-drug propaganda. Harm reduction efforts need to reach the at-risk people, not just preach to the choir.

The government didnt lose its credibility, the people chose to throw their respect for it away. In all honesty, it is sooooo much safer to simply go by the rules they give us (they make these rules to protect us, this isnt 1984 as much as you want to believe it is).

We're talking about a 13 year-old girl. She should never had access to drugs, but guess what? There aren't any age limits on buying something that's already illegal.

I personally preach harm reduction / legalisation and regulation, but I know that 13 year old kids will always have access to drugs,legal or illegal, will always take them without propper education and judgmental skills, and will always have the possibility of death or serious injury. The only way to be 100 percent safe is to not take drugs. If the girl didnt want to be safe, she made that decision. If she would have listened to the government and didnt take the drugs, she would be totally fine right now (unless some other irrelivent event came along)

I also believe you are giving kids too much credit.

Because kids can tell the difference between advice designed to help you and threats designed to manipulate you.

If they could tell good advice from threats I dont see why any of them would ever drive drunk, or ride with a drunk driver, but they do all the time.

What warnings? Since when has the government warned young people about hyponatremia?

The governments warning I was speaking of was that doing drugs is risky business. End of story. No matter how much someone tries to defend it, no matter what you do, if you take drugs, you are taking risks (even if they are smaller than advertised)

They have time and time again tried to cover up the true cause of hyponatremia deaths because they wanted anti-drug poster children.

I was unaware the government has hidden the true cause of death in hyponatremia cases. I have heard of quite a few. I believe it is negligence in the media companies rather than the government. Seeing how the government most likly didnt publish that article. You must have not went to school since the "rave epidemic" In my 11th grade year we had speakers at our school talking about the dangers of "club drugs" and even they (in their rediculously biassed speaches) mentioned quite a few cases where the people died from drinking too much water, rather than just because of the drug (and this was in 2002). Either way, I highly doubt she would have drank that much water had she not taken an illegal and risky substance.

BTW, could you please find some sources in your spare time that show this hiding you speak of that has been done so many times?

Not trying to be an ass, but I strongly believe that just like the government may be very biased against taking drugs, I feel people who take drugs are far too often equally or more biassed about taking them.

I guess my main point is that these damages cant possibly be done if you dont take the drug, but they still are possible even if you follow good harm reduction steps. I cant help but feel i am leaving something out of this reply, I know you will most likely still disagree greatly with me, but maybe now you will realise why I made my post. I used to be all about altering my mind with any substance, as long as I was doing it smart, safe, and informed. I have since realised alot of the things I did that were "safe" were really only "safer"

 

[JeW BaLLs]

theDEA.org I have a challenge for you. Can you find ONE wrongly intended reason that our government doesnt want us, the people, to do drugs?

 

[lifeisforliving]

^ Why should the government get to decide on "intent" what we can and cannot do? As the cliche goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The underlying understanding in your comment is that we somehow solely LIVE for government as a collective. How about the rights of the individual? How about cognitive liberty?

How do you see cognitive liberty being addressed by your idea of how government should restrict access to psychoactives?

 

[dilated_pupils]

I feel bad for this girl and her family I guess I can't fully understand however, since I wasn't introduced into the drug culture until I was a bit older. I mean, I may have smoked pot around 13, but I stuck to that until I was 15-16. And by that time, I had done some research to know what I was doing (to some extent). I really would like to see the report on her death and what caused it, and also would like to find out what happens to the 16 year old who gave the pills to them.

 

[bigmac74]

The governments warning I was speaking of was that doing drugs is risky business. End of story. No matter how much someone tries to defend it, no matter what you do, if you take drugs, you are taking risks (even if they are smaller than advertised)

Being near the same age as this girl I know what the government preaches through school, and it's: "Ecstasy can cause hyperthermia, make sure to drink plenty of water."
What the government don't warn you about is that ecstasy increases vasopressin (ADH) levels, causing your body to hold in more water (which, in the right setting, is a good thing as you're sweating more than usual). Also, most of the people I have warned (around the same age) ask questions such as "How can water kill you?", this girl may have also thought this, and thought that drinking lots of water was "playing it safe".

Also girls sometimes hold more water in than boys (because of premenstrual water retention), and girls also seem to die from hyponatremia more often than boys. Link? or coincidence?