I just read this here . It appears to be true. How could someone’s SMALL intestine be sucked out. I’d think the large intestine would come out (prolapse?) first.
Got me there. But this has happened before. More than once, I regret to say. 
Okay, it’s official. Anything Chuck Palahniuk writes about could actually happen. The intestines out through the back door thing was my last holdout.
I think the Minneapolis Golf Club should have their lawyers ready and be on the lookout for a big lawsuit.
Trans-anal and trans-vaginal evisceration of small and large bowel can occur, either from positive pressure on the abdomen in crush injuries or negative pressure around the anus and vagina sucking the guts out.
For the small bowel to be the predominant organ which eviscerates, a rupture in the terminal portion of the colon (recto-sigmoid) occurs and the small bowel eviscerates through that.
I recall a case from about 20 years ago (reported in JAMA, I think…) of a fat lady on a cruise ship who hit the flush button. It was the type of cruise ship toilet that had a hearty suction on it. Her backside made a perfect seal and the cruise doctor found her on the bed with her large bowel extensively prolapsed.
Hey, you think we go into medicine to treat hypertension?
So would I, but from this link it seems it ruptured the rectum (which I think is the part between the anus and large intestine) and then just sucked random bits of her guts out through the gap. Perhaps the large intestine is more robust and better anchored, or just routed out of vacuuming distance - I would have to defer to someone with education in these matters. All I can say is :eek: :eek: :eek:
Mythbusters debunked that, I think. They determined that the seat would prevent any significant suction, and that if for some reason the fat lady sat directly on the rim it still would not create a tight enough seal.
Oh god. This was already making me feel nauseous. That poor little girl.
Tell that to this guy:
Wynne JB. Vacuum toilet evisceration (Letter). JAMA 1987; 257:1177.
And may I add a self-congrtulatory note that my 20 year time-frame was right on the money, even if I can’t remember what happened yesterday.
From your cite:
In other words there are no verified studies showing that vacuum or the suction created by it are the cause of the injuries.
Gotcha.
It would be highly unusual for a physician to simply fake a report for the sake of getting his name on a minor letter of no consequence to his career in a peer-reviewed publication.
You can follow bibliophage’s Cecil link to get Cecil’s take on the story.
As I’m sure you know, “anecdotal” as it is used in reference to medical literature means individual reports as opposed to large-scale formalized studies.
It is not an implication that a given report is in doubt.
But hey, you got those TV show guys going for ya, so get your facts from your preferred sources, I guess.
Hey thanks for the snark there Chief. But hey you got your argument from authority going there for ya…
Not only an argument from authority but an actual cite supporting the actual fact exactly as I had posted it.
If this reply “In other words there are no verified studies showing that vacuum or the suction created by it are the cause of the injuries.” was not meant as a slam I misinterpreted it.
My apologies to you.
I’m interested in learning here, not sniping. I should not have written my reply so cavalierly. I am sorry.
It was not meant as a slam. I only refered to Mythbusters because they actually did some on air expirements. Not that they are necesarily good science, but they made some good points. Mainly that the seat between the bowl and a persons ass would prohibit a good seal to create vacuum. Also that the crack in the front and the back of a persons ass tends to prohibit a good seal even if they sit directly on the bowl. They also pointed out that the normal operating suction on models that work by suction was insufficient to cause the injuries described.
I also pointed out that your cite was a second hand report by a doctor. Who knows what really caused the injuries? I am not saying that it absolutely was not vacuum, just that there is “Some” evidence (Mythbusters) that the story is urban legend. Furthermore even if some injury did occur on the toilet there has been no detailed information provided that it was not some kind of freak malfunction.
This is GQ, I think it is important to point out information which may be urban legend. I am completely willing to have it pointed out that I am incorrect and that there have indeed been cases where a properly functioning toilet created enough vacuum to injur someone. But I hardly think that one cite of an unverified letter to a medical journal 20 years ago is sufficient. The letter itself points out that the information was anecdotal. That means that lay people described what they thought happened.
It’s not really a direct argument from authority, but rather an implied argument of the form:
A: The Journal of the American Medical Association is a peer reviewed publication that is relied upon by the medical community to be as accurate as possible
B: JAMA published a report of a case
C: Most cases published by JAMA turn out to be true upon verification
D: There is no known incentive for somebody to fabricate this case
A+B+C+D together imply that the case report is most likely accurate.
Arguments from authority (as a noun phrase describing a logical fallacy) require either an appeal to an unverified or unrelated authority or a deductive argument.
groman, check the cite. It is not a peer reviewed cased reported in JAMMA. Christ, from these posts I would think this was the Pit. Can’t roll eyes but, sheesh.
I just want to say after reading the first couple of links, I think my asshole slammed so shut, I will be able to use the toilet for a week or so.