|Index||4 reviews in total|
Wow, what a weird episode this one is, in a TV show that has become
known in recent years for its strange stories. This one is one of the
There are two crimes to solve. Well, actually the first isn't a crime but a disease that makes a person literally "eat himself to death." This segment is really gross, so be warned if you haven't seen it. Seeing someone "pig out" like this guy does is pretty obscene. Looking at what's inside his stomach back at the Medical examiner's office is even more disgusting.
The second story involves a newly-divorced husband and wife arguing over who gets the family pet, the golden retriever dog. The husband has been shot and the wife has had her throat torn up (with canine bite marks.) The dog seems just fine and where is the gun? What happens in very strange but some "dog facts" presented here are very interesting.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So we go, in a few episodes, from "Gum drops" to - for me - one of the
worst CSI episodes for a while.
The episode is certainly informative - one of the things I love about CSI (you get pretty good on what petechial haemorrhaging and what it means if you watch enough of this show, also other indicators of strangulation/drowning/bruising/lividity/time of death etc). I knew nothing of the condition affecting the hypothalamus that the poor fellow in this episode suffered from.
That said my stomach was not absolutely constant BEFORE I watched this episode - with the man's 6 litres of distended stomach contents being somehow sorted into different jars by food-type - and surprisingly I did not notice a big improvement during or after. As well as scientific info, we get another CSI staple - revolting fluids. Lots of them.
SPOILERS: The other story I find quite meaningless. A guy breaks back into his OWN HOUSE, after his ex has changed the locks. He's already stolen back his Beatles records (she was going to spitefully sell them) and now he wants his dog back (she cheated in a love-competition by handling bacon before they competitively called the dog to them). When he breaks back in, she shoots him. Bang. Gone. Just like that. Then one of the dogs kills her too. So that's nice!
I mean this is nonsense. I guess if they are trying to show us the pointlessness of some crimes (another CSI theme) then OK - but the episode doesn't work for me at all.
The name of the disorder the guy had is Prader-Willi Syndrome. It is a
difficult syndrome to manage, but it is not impossible with the right
environmental controls. You don't have to lock up the individuals who
have it. Instead you lock up their food in the home and provide strict
supervision when they are out of their home. The truth is, though, that
they can most definitely eat themselves to death in one sitting!
Obviously our stomachs only hold a certain amount of food and a person
with PWS can't feel when the stomach is full, so they could eat so much
their stomachs actually rupture. Furthermore, binge eating even of a
lesser capacity can cause their stomachs to become necrotic and they
can die from that too.
I have yet to see this episode. I missed it when it originally aired and can't seem to catch a rerun of it to save my life! LOL I know about this disorder because I work with 17 individuals who have it. My job is anything but boring! :)
What was the name of the eating disorder that the guy had? I had never heard of it before. It was kind of disgusting the way he was eating but i felt sorry for him since it wasn't his fault that he couldn't stop eating. If i had a relative like that i don't think i could take care of them because i would feel so bad about locking them up like that. Although it would be better to lock them up than to let them eat the way they would if they had access to food. I hated that the dog had killed the girl but really it was kind of like karma. It was a good show though. CSI is awesome. I am glad that there are new episodes. I like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation more than i like CSI: NY or CSI: Miami.
|Ratings||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|