Pranked Nurse commits suicide [UK]

[shise]

Did she lose her job over the hoax?

If so, that could explain things...

No, that wouldn't explain anything, none loses his job in 1 hour like that, even if it happens, she'd get it back since it was a joke.

----------------

That person was clearly insane or something else was behind... none would do such thing out of a prank.

[Wiyld]

Tough situation for sure. Where do you place blame? Or even how? If we simply chalk it up to the DJ's being entirely at fault then where do we draw the line? If I eat a bunch of cabbage and fart on a train am I entirely to blame if someone leaps to their death from the window for fresh air? Silly example but you get the idea. Anything we do has consequences, we all know that at a basic level, we assume certain reactions based on previous experience. This woman's unfortunate reaction was way way outside of common reactions and in my mind pretty unpredictable.

Simply saying, 'well it doesn't matter because this kind of entertainment is unnecessary anyways' is a weak argument because honestly all entertainment is unnecessary. These DJ's have been on the air for years, clearly they had a following of fans who supported their actions. I've never been a fan of the stupid prank morning shows, but their popularity should tell us that they are very much in demand by the general population of much of the world.

[Deleted]

No, that wouldn't explain anything, none loses his job in 1 hour like that, even if it happens, she'd get it back since it was a joke.

----------------

That person was clearly insane or something else was behind... none would do such thing out of a prank.

You're not seeing the whole picture. Yes, it was a joke, it is not the joke which drove her to suicide. Obviously I'm speculating, but the very real fear that she could lose her job alongside being a national laughingstock is a perfectly valid (for want of a much better word) reason to commit suicide. The hospital has said it offered to support her, but the fear of disciplinary action would have been perfectly legitimate. Having your name in the headline article on BBC news doesn't help either.

Also, "she would have got her job back because it was a joke" isn't true. This was a fairly serious breach in protocol, even if it was a joke, she could have potentially (at least in her mind) lost her job. That's the reason this "joke" has been roundly criticised, because they had absolutely no consideration for an ordinary person doing their job, and what the consequences of their actions could be.

[Yerbury]

To sum it up we have some variables you take for granted in which you are plain wrong:

1) You assume the prank would succeed. As former government employee (granted, not in UK) I would not assume this at all due to protocols and repercussions.
2) You assume disciplinary action would be taken. I say an investigation to find out if it was protocol or personal mistake is more likely.

Bullshit. Here's the real bottom line. No one forced the hand of the DJs. They conjured up a scheme, and executed it accordingly. They had the time and wherewithal to consider the potential outcomes of that scheme. It would lead to one of two eventual outcomes. One, the call would be rejected. Two, it would be put through. The remoteness of one over the other is nothing more than a red herring. Regardless of your justifications, career harm and/or discipline for the nurse - in the event that the call was successful - were both absolutely foreseeable.

You also continue to argue over whether the nurse was at fault, and whether this was valid investigative journalism. These points are irrelevant to our discussion. Our discussion is about whether the consequences were foreseeable, not whether the initial actions were justified. If you want to argue something else, that's fine, but the contortionist act is ridiculous. If you want to start arguing oranges when we were initially talking apples, at least have the fortitude to state as much, so that we can begin a different line of debate.

3) You assume the prank callers knew the person was emotionally unstable (they didn't even know her!) that our subject would commit suicide over this. Highly unlikely they knew, and highly unlikely she'd have done this.

If suicide is a reasonable outcome of a mere prank then doing pranks would be illegal. You know what is much more likely? Suicide after years of bullying, and even in those cases people aren't prosecuted. And even here, there are 2 parties involved.

Reading comprehension for the win. Despite having pointed out to you earlier that I never stated that suicide was a reasonably foreseeable outcome here, you continue to argue the point as though it is central to our discussion. I do not, did not and will not consider suicide as something the DJs should have contemplated. Why, therefore, you continue to hammer away at this point is a mystery.

[Deleted]

They had the time and wherewithal to consider the potential outcomes of that scheme. It would lead to one of two eventual outcomes. One, the call would be rejected. Two, it would be put through. The remoteness of one over the other is nothing more than a red herring. Regardless of your justifications, career harm and/or discipline for the nurse - in the event that the call was successful - were both absolutely foreseeable.

Not to disagree with you, but this wasn't even the case. The call was taped beforehand, they had plenty of time after the successful prank to decide to go ahead or not. Lolalola's "variable" that the call may or may not succeed isn't a variable at all, the call did succeed and then they had time to consider. Given that they claim to have sought the nurse's consent five times they obviously knew that there could be consequences, as does the fact they let their lawyers look over it too.

[Yerbury]

Not to disagree with you, but this wasn't even the case. The call was taped beforehand, they had plenty of time after the successful prank to decide to go ahead or not. Lolalola's "variable" that the call may or may not succeed isn't a variable at all, the call did succeed and then they had time to consider. Given that they claim to have sought the nurse's consent five times they obviously knew that there could be consequences, as does the fact they let their lawyers look over it too.

Fair enough, Tommy, and thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of that chronology of events. It just lends further credence to the consequences position in my view.

[Deleted]

Bullshit. Here's the real bottom line. No one forced the hand of the DJs. They conjured up a scheme, and executed it accordingly.

That's a bold assumption. I stated you could clearly hear they were surprised they were put through (I also am not saying this is definitive proof though; could be acted), and on top of that I also stated it is unlikely they were put through. It is far more likely that the person on the other end would've told them to fuck off or reply "haha, very funny". You make it seem as if the variable is 50/50, as if either you're put through, or you're not. That is bullshit, and that's why I mention it because it means the recording after the initial lines wasn't scripted and wasn't as you put it a plan they executed. A good actor is able to improvise on the go, ya know.

What a legal department decides is irrelevant from the DJs point of view, which was the point of view I was coming from.

Regardless of your justifications, career harm and/or discipline for the nurse - in the event that the call was successful - were both absolutely foreseeable.

Here's news for you: people who take irresponsible actions in their professional career lose customers, income, get reprimanded, or lose their job. The irony here is this appears to have happened to the DJs (although it could be temporarily, for damage control).

Now, as I mentioned it is also absolutely foreseeable she wouldn't get much -if any- any disciplinary action because a good employee builds up credit, and because the employer would also reflect on their own procedures. Employers aren't as dumb as they see someone make a mistake and are like "sack 'em!" barring in very low-end jobs like production. Fact as we know it she wasn't fired right after the mistake she made became known. She couldve, but wasn't. Even if she was, you make it seem as if these DJs destroyed the life of this nurse. They didn't. She made a mistake, although they provoked her into it, which means she has to pay up for it. Just like if you call someone a faggot on the street and he shoots you it is you who provoked and them who committed murder. Obviously, if you didn't call him faggot he likely wouldn't have shoot at you (or maybe you did because you looked weird at him), but if you weren't there in the first place because you went to buy some fags from the grocery store then you wouldn't even met the fellow.

You also continue to argue over whether the nurse was at fault, and whether this was valid investigative journalism. These points are irrelevant to our discussion. Our discussion is about whether the consequences were foreseeable, not whether the initial actions were justified. If you want to argue something else, that's fine, but the contortionist act is ridiculous. If you want to start arguing oranges when we were initially talking apples, at least have the fortitude to state as much, so that we can begin a different line of debate.

Sucks for you, but I find it relevant to the discussion else I wouldn't have brought it up and therefore I mentioned it. I'm not sure on it though because there's a clear sensationalist aspect to the way this was executed. From an investigative point of view I also put questions around why people in Australia would be bothered about the privacy issues in UK hospitals.

If you're going from this point of view though you can say these DJs found a rotten apple in the UK hospital system. A seemingly emotionally unstable mole who gets overwhelmed and easily invades privacy. Lets just say, someone unfit to pick up the phone and decide if she should patch people through. Thing is, this is something you'd find out during an internal investigation. Who made the mistake? The person giving out the information made a mistake as well? This investigation is the responsibility of the employee and we likely won't even hear the outcome of this.

Reading comprehension for the win. Despite having pointed out to you earlier that I never stated that suicide was a reasonably foreseeable outcome here, you continue to argue the point as though it is central to our discussion. I do not, did not and will not consider suicide as something the DJs should have contemplated. Why, therefore, you continue to hammer away at this point is a mystery.

I don't care what you find relevant or not except when it is in a private message. If its in a forum, it is a public discussion and a point made isn't necessarily one against yours. You'll find a lot of things said in public seemingly addressed to others (e.g. mister speaker in parliament) while it is actually addressed to a much larger address. In the example I mentioned it is a form of courtesy.

PS: And if you're so good at detecting logical fallacies as you're trying to make yourself please don't use silly sentences like Only an apologist for bad behavior would reason otherwise.

[Yerbury]

I don't care what you find relevant or not except when it is in a private message. If its in a forum, it is a public discussion and a point made isn't necessarily one against yours. You'll find a lot of things said in public seemingly addressed to others (e.g. mister speaker in parliament) while it is actually addressed to a much larger address. In the example I mentioned it is a form of courtesy.[/i]

Convenient. Your posts all quote mine (to the exclusion of others), yet now you are saying that your comments are directed toward a larger audience.

I can't debate someone who shifts the goalposts around like this. In a week's time, you'll be stating that we're arguing over whether the Porsche is motoring's superior automobile.

[Zeta333]

This woman deserves no pitty at all, Not only did she not do her job correctly but she commits suicide becuase of it ? Come on. I work at a pizza joint and even i can tell when the phone call is coming from another area code let alone country. So many things she should have done before connecting the call and giving away information. She deserves no pity for commiting suicide and taking a cowards way out of facing her mistake. This radio station may have made a prank phone call but its not even close to being thier fault becuase she killed her self. If people think that this aussie radio show was out of line or bad you obv havnt listened to american talk radio and shows like Tom Leykis or the old Don and mike show.

[Solarshot]

wonder if those aussie djs are still laughing now?

I know I'd be... it was a pretty good prank call.

[saffi]

"Unclear circumstances" and such is a way of hiding the fact that this is suicide. I remember reading an article in a local norwegian newspaper about a study that showed that since newspapers stopped writing about suicides, suicide rates have gone down. I can't find it right now, but for anyone wondering why it wasn't explicitly mentioned, maybe this is why.

[Deleted]

Convenient. Your posts all quote mine (to the exclusion of others), yet now you are saying that your comments are directed toward a larger audience.

[...]

That's true yes. If I were to address you and you alone, I would sent you private message. I'm not doing that; I am talking in a public forum with you. Others read/hear, you know.

[Deleted]

"On Tuesday, hospital chief executive John Lofthouse said he had "received advice that what the Australian broadcasters did may well have broken the law".

But he added: "On the other hand they've apologised for it so we're going to have a long and careful think about what, if anything, we do."

WTF.....? So when people apologize it gets them off the hook?

We ARE British, manners count for something.

[Orby]

"On Tuesday, hospital chief executive John Lofthouse said he had "received advice that what the Australian broadcasters did may well have broken the law".

But he added: "On the other hand they've apologised for it so we're going to have a long and careful think about what, if anything, we do."

WTF.....? So when people apologize it gets them off the hook?

Its not like they intended to kill her. If I gave you a knife and you stab yourself with it, should I be made to pay for that? Plus should we now stop radio pranks now because of this "one" case. I used to love listening to radio pranks with Steve Penk (a radio DJ in the UK) and he was awesome and I would still love and laugh at it now, the last thing we needs to go all PC about stuff for what happened to one unstable person. The only crime committed here is the suicide since last I checked that was a crime.

[Stir]

Its not like they intended to kill her. If I gave you a knife and you stab yourself with it, should I be made to pay for that? Plus should we now stop radio pranks now because of this "one" case. I used to love listening to radio pranks with Steve Penk (a radio DJ in the UK) and he was awesome and I would still love and laugh at it now, the last thing we needs to go all PC about stuff for what happened to one unstable person. The only crime committed here is the suicide since last I checked that was a crime.

Actually...
There's nothing that suggests she commited suicide over this.
In fact, the article states (even though the information is probably invalid since... Well; everyone would say they were in full support of the one who's now dead) that the hospital supported her, and that the royal family supported the nurses at the hospital.
Simply put: There's no evidence that suggests that the two incidents, the prank call and the nurse's death, are related. In fact, at this moment in time, 'prank call causes nurse's death' is nothing more than a causal story that is invented in order to make sense out of the nurse's death.

Here's a thing: Let's say the nurse had a really good friend who became very, very ill. A week later, the nurse offs herself. The title headline would say: 'Friend's illness causes nurse's suicide.' Or something along the line. In any case, that's what you would believe, because all you get for information is 'Friend is severely ill, nurse kills herself.'
That's like saying 'Nurse buys a blue ford fiesta with a broken exhaust. She kills herself a week later' and expecting the blue fiesta with broken exhaust to somehow be responsible for the nurse's death.