Pranked Nurse Found Dead

[niuniu]

No-one knows if the stress from her mistake at work was the main reason for her suicide. She could have had serious depression or other issues. She could have been feeling suicidal before this event.

I would like to know if the prank call was for a normal member of the public, would she have still committed suicide. I speculate that she wouldn't, and because of that there is a political element to this that cannot be avoided.

Both her and another nurse were involved, but we have no idea how the blame was apportioned internally either.

Blame the DJs, blame the Royals, blame the hospital. Can 'blame' them all in part, but not to the extent where you could call them responsible for a death. Simply a tragedy.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

But it was also cleared by those legal people.

Apparently they aren't very good at their jobs then.

The purpose of this Code is to prevent the unauthorised broadcast of
statements by identifiable persons.
6.1 A licensee must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person
unless:
(a) that person has been informed in advance or a reasonable person
would be aware that the words may be broadcast; or
(b) in the case of words which have been recorded without the
knowledge of the person, that person has subsequently, but prior
to the broadcast, expressed consent to the broadcast of the
words.

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aba/con..._5sept2011.pdf

The thing with prank shows like Candid Camera and Punk'd is that they need to obtain a release form from the person they are pranking before they air the show. No release form and it can't ever be aired. Most radio stations when they do a recorded prank like this will identify themselves after the prank is over and ask the person if they have permission to air the prank. This never happened here.

The station made a HUGE mistake airing this, especially after they actually got through and got information.

The radio station announced today that their show has been cancelled.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by flopticalcube

The problem with pranks of such nature is that you can never count on the mental stability of the "victim". As long as the public continues to eat up such garbage, however, these things will continue. I do hope some good can come from this and people think twice before doing it again.

I completely see and agree in spirit. Then I think about the problems, suppression of liberties with outlawing pranks. I don't feel the answer is clear. I imagine some legal limits could be set but my initial impression is that it's opening a can of worms.

Hows this for a prank? I could see a heart attack and in the U.S. you'd better make sure people were not packing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N5OhNplEd4

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Huntn

I completely see and agree in spirit. Then I think about the problems, suppression of liberties with outlawing pranks. I don't feel the answer is clear. I imagine some legal limits could be set but my initial impression is that it's opening a can of worms.

Hows this for a prank? I could see a heart attack and in the U.S. you'd better make sure people were not packing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N5OhNplEd4

I don't believe that pranks like this should be outlawed. And I do think they were expecting to get cussed out and hung up on because they were being so over the top and ridiculous. Because of how it played out, I do agree with zioxide. The station should have asked for releases from the hosptial and the 2 nurses involved. I doubt highly they would have allowed it and none of this "fallout" would have happened.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I don't believe that pranks like this should be outlawed. And I do think they were expecting to get cussed out and hung up on because they were being so over the top and ridiculous. Because of how it played out, I do agree with zioxide. The station should have asked for releases from the hosptial and the 2 nurses involved. I doubt highly they would have allowed it and none of this "fallout" would have happened.

I don't know the details of the prank in question. As I imagine it, there could be some embarrassment involved, but if an individual's tolerance for embarrassment is so low they take their lives, they were all ready in serious jeopardy. It's a tragedy, it took this event to reveal the issue.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Huntn

I don't know the details of the prank in question. As I imagine it, there could be some embarrassment involved in the prank, but if an individual's tolerance for embarrassment is so low they take their lives, they were all ready in serious jeopardy. It's a tragedy, it took this event to reveal the issue.

I agree - this incident as a stand-alone was probably not the only reason for the suicide. However, they were broadcast medical information on a patient - so they had more than one reason to believe that broadcasting this was a bad idea. Do you think the hospital, the nurses involved, or the patient would have allowed this to air had they been asked?

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I agree - this incident as a stand-alone was probably not the only reason for the suicide. However, they were broadcast medical information on a patient - so they had more than one reason to believe that broadcasting this was a bad idea. Do you think the hospital, the nurses involved, or the patient would have allowed this to air had they been asked?

The parties involved would have disapproved. I thought that at one time in the U.S. certain shows like Candid Camera needed, or it was their policy to get releases from their victims. I believe this was to avoid liability and being sued.

[jeremy h]

There was quite an interesting radio interview with a character here called Dom Joly (who did a lot of pranky / spoof tv stuff here a few years ago) this morning here. One of the points he made was that participant approval was absolutely vital before broadcast as there can be all sorts of unintended consequences.

He made the point that all sorts of weird issues crop up and you have to be very, very careful. One which happened regularly to him was filming romantic couples who actually shouldn't have been a couple. Even if the stunt looked perfectly innocuous had he just gone ahead and broadcast the consequences would have been horrible for those he'd filmed.

He also said radio pranks are potentially much more dangerous as you can't size up the situation as well you can when you're face to face.

[Scepticalscribe]

I have taken the time to read this entire thread because I wished to satisfy myself that I was au fait with what has been discussed.

Originally Posted by davidjearly

Feel for the DJs? Ridiculous notion. ........

As a medic, the thought of anyone trying to obtain confidential patient information, either in the name of apparent 'humour' or not, is disgusting.

I'll reiterate, their actions are made worse by the fact that this was not a split-second decision. It was pre-recorded. They had the opportunity to reflect on the call, but then still chose to play it on air, knowing the senstive nature of it and the potential damage it could do. It doesn't *just* rest at the foot of the DJs though. The scumbag lawyers and managers of the station should also feel responsible, and they all should be fired........

I'm pretty much in agreement with you.

Originally Posted by eric/

..........
Ok, we all know that you shouldn't prank call people or whatever. It's rude. But we also have pretty much all done it. It is funny, and it is entertainment. There are scores of videos and audio clips available from people doing it.

...............

The nurse made a mistake with the prank call. ...........

The DJs are obviously distraught. They're losing their jobs over this too. So it's not like they just had their laugh and got away with it.

The nurse killing herself is an overreaction, but still sad for obvious reasons.

It's just a ****** situation. They shouldn't have called, but then again it's something that is done around the world, all the time. It's not like they are going over the top trying to harm people or acting in a way that isn't consistent within society........

I beg to differ. Pranks of this nature are never funny - even as a child, I loathed them, and no, we have not 'all pretty much done it'. Personally, I have long seen this sort of conduct - whether in the schoolyard, an office, or a radio or TV programme as a nasty and ugly form of bullying and public humiliation, disguised as humour in an attempt to make it more socially acceptable.

The reason it 'is consistent within society' is that - as with all forms of bullying - by-standers are reluctant to query such behaviour in case they, too, subsequently become nominated as targets. This sort of public humiliation appeals to the prurient, to the greedy hunger for private information that elements of our society & media seem happy to feed, and to the desire - not so much to laugh, but as not to be laughed at, to be a part of the cabal of knowing insiders who, by their membership of such a group (however temporary) are allowed knowing laughter at the expense of a nominated victim.

The suggestion that 'celebrities' implicitly agree to sacrifice their privacy in return for their celebrity status, whereby, when they are conferred with a reluctant and conditional public admiration, attention (and sometimes adulation) they agree to forego all rights to the private space seems excessive to me.

Yes, pandering to such needs of course makes money, and sells papers and advertising space. The fact that something is popular, or meets a public demand, does not justify it.

I have no quarrel with the private lives of public figures in politics being subject to scrutiny, if, for example, their publicly stated beliefs (such as perhaps, loud opposition to abortion), clashes profoundly with private actions (such as driving a much younger pregnant girlfriend to an abortion clinic while happily prattling about the joys of the married state and the evils of birth control). This is because such people get to make laws which have an influence on our lives, and, if their inconsistency and hypocrisy know no bounds, then I, as an elector and citizen need (and not merely wish) to know that. However, living a life in the public space does not mean that we, the public, have the right to know every last detail of a person's private life.

Originally Posted by davidjearly

It's pretty tiresome having to explain this over and over.

What makes this particularly distasteful of the DJs, is that this was aired after it was recorded. It didn't happen live.

Therefore, they DID have time to reflect about what the consequences of their actions would be before airing the call. They knew they were airing something that could get the nurse into a lot of trouble and they knew they were airing something that was focused on confidential patient information.

That is why they deserve to feel responsible. That is why they deserve to be punished.

As a medic, this is what disgusts me the most. The aim to obtain confidential information, for 'humour' or not. Followed by the reckless intention to release this on air, knowing the consequences of it.

They are scum. End of.

Very good post. And, yes, to reiterate a point you have made several times, nobody has any right to ask about anyone else's medical case-notes, or to seek to obtain them, from a hospital. To seek to do so, as a prank, or simply prying, is a gross violation of patient confidentiality and is none of anyone else's business.

Originally Posted by jeremy h

I don't like these prank calls (they seem to have a whiff of the schoolboy bully about them) but celebrity DJ's prank calling other celebrities about 'celebrity stuff' I can sort of understand. (Sort of like a bunch of workers sending the lad out for a can of elbow grease etc) If you dish it out you have to be able to take it etc etc

However, there is an unspoken line. Here in the UK a few years ago Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand prank called actor Andrew Sachs and commented to him about his granddaughter and her personal life. Rightly, everyone went ballistic as they hadn't just crossed that line they'd smashed through it. It was seen as deeply unpleasant and the fall out was huge. There was outrage and sackings all round.

Even before the desperate consquences this was a nasty 'prank' by a station who makes a habit of being controversial. (One of their previous little japes appears to have included getting a girl to admit to have been raped on air). It's staggering that anyone who is not an idiot attention seeking DJ can approve of calling a hospital to try and get them to divulge information about a patient. (This whole thing appears to have been officially sanctioned and subsequently promoted by the station.) In whose world is this OK?

What really gets to me though (and they've just shown the station's boss reading a statement on the news here) is the assumption that the death of this poor nurse is just some sort of unfortunate collateral damage to their business model.

I've taken the liberty of quoting you in full because I think this is an excellent post and sums the matter up extremely well.

Originally Posted by wikus

Still no reason to commit suicide.

This whole story is laughable.

Originally Posted by eric/

The funniest part is the idiot nurse/receptionist who fell for the trick then was so embarrassed that she killed herself.

Originally Posted by eric/

No, it's people being outraged because they're bored

Three dreadful posts - I selected them because they are short and brutally horrible. No, this story is not funny. Nothing about it is funny, not the puerile prank, not the frightful consequences.

And no, I don't think people are outraged because they are 'bored'. I think the outrage comes from what is considered acceptable behaviour from elements of the media in pursuit of market share and advertising and listeners. Again, the fact that such programmes are popular does not excuse their existence.

Worse, this is exactly the sort of programme that gives yet further ammunition to those who would seek to curtail legitimate investigative journalism on the part of an independent media.

Originally Posted by VulchR

I am appalled that some people posting here seem to be quite harsh on the nurse who apparently committed suicide. She wasn't the victim of a harmless prank. It was fraud, (actually it would have been treason in the UK) and the people who committed the fraud mocked their victims mercilessly and it went viral. Perhaps the hospital did not formally discipline the nurse, but I can imagine that she might have been bullied and perhaps even told she would be subject to a future disciplinary hearing. Even if one views the impact the 'prank' as minor, perhaps the person was already experiencing problems and this was the last straw. That just makes this suicide - if that is what it was - all the more senseless and unnecessary.

Some of the callous posts in this thread are contemptible.

Again, I have to agree with you. Completely. Some of the posts are simply stunning in their lack of empathy for the staff of the hospital.

Originally Posted by eric/

It was a harmless prank until the receptionist unfortunately kill herself. It wasn't even close to fraud because of the ridiculousness of the idea that you could call a hospital, pretend to be the QUEEN OF ENGLAND and have 0 verification and actually get through.



Well, she failed in her duties. She rightly should have been disciplined. And if she was dealing with mental issues, that's unfortunate, but it's not as if the DJs targeted nurses with issues. They just called and pretended to be the Queen of England. If somebody calls you and gets one over you in that manner, sorry, you were had.

It was not a 'harmless prank' - such calls are never 'harmless pranks'; and, if you are working in a hospital, working long shifts as a medical carer, how on earth is it part of your job description to know whether a caller about a patient is genuine or not? Besides, at the small hours of the morning, superiors from whom one might seek a ruling on such a matter tend to be rather thin on the ground.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

It was not a 'harmless prank' - such calls are never 'harmless pranks'; and, if you are working in a hospital, working long shifts as a medical carer, how on earth is it part of your job description to know whether a caller about a patient is genuine or not? Besides, at the small hours of the morning, superiors from whom one might seek a ruling on such a matter tend to be rather thin on the ground.

This is where the argument breaks down. I would think that if you get a call from the Queen of England that a few red flags should go up. That would be like getting a call from the President of the United States, I would be skeptical.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by MacNut

This is where the argument breaks down. I would think that if you get a call from the Queen of England that a few red flags should go up. That would be like getting a call from the President of the United States, I would be skeptical.

Not necessarily, as it was known that the grand-daughter-in-law of the Queen was in that hospital at that time. She would have had a perfectly good reason to call, however unlikely. High ranking people such as the Queen are used to having their queries answered with a minimum of fuss, and not to have to answer for their actions, or to prove that they are who they say they are. And what if the nurse had called it wrongly, and the person she spoke to actually was the Queen, whom she denied information to?

Why, recently, in the UK alone, we recently saw police officers on duty at the entrance to Downing Street threatened by the former Government Chief Whip, Mr Andrew Mitchell - the usual bullying nonsense that powerful and arrogant individuals come out with when they believe themselves accountable to nobody, "do you not know who I am? You should know your proper place" when they refused (quite rightly) to open the security gates to allow the Chief Whip sail through on his bicycle. He complained about them; fortunately, they had logged the incident in considerable detail.

[VulchR]

Bloody h*ll. Apparently 'Fox & Firends' aired the tape of the prank call. That's pure class....

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by MacNut

This is where the argument breaks down. I would think that if you get a call from the Queen of England that a few red flags should go up. That would be like getting a call from the President of the United States, I would be skeptical.

You can't hold everyone to your level of your acumen.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Not necessarily, as it was known that the grand-daughter-in-law of the Queen was in that hospital at that time. She would have had a perfectly good reason to call, however unlikely. High ranking people such as the Queen are used to having their queries answered with a minimum of fuss, and not to have to answer for their actions, or to prove that they are who they say they are. And what if the nurse had called it wrongly, and the person she spoke to actually was the Queen, whom she denied information to?

Why, recently, in the UK alone, we recently saw police officers on duty at the entrance to Downing Street threatened by the former Government Chief Whip, Mr Andrew Miller - the usual bullying nonsense that powerful and arrogant individuals come out with when they believe themselves accountable to nobody, "do you not know who I am? You should know your proper place" when they refused (quite rightly) to open the security gates to allow the Chief Whip sail through on his bicycle. He complained about them; fortunately, they had logged the incident in considerable detail.

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

You can't hold everyone to your level of your acumen.

What is the protocol when the queen calls. The president doesn't do a personal call, he is usually transfered. Does the queen have handlers that make the initial call?

[jeremy h]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Why, recently, in the UK alone, we recently saw police officers on duty at the entrance to Downing Street threatened by the former Government Chief Whip, Mr Andrew Miller - the usual bullying nonsense that powerful and arrogant individuals come out with when they believe themselves accountable to nobody, "do you not know who I am? You should know your proper place" when they refused (quite rightly) to open the security gates to allow the Chief Whip sail through on his bicycle. He complained about them; fortunately, they had logged the incident in considerable detail.

Pssst... be careful - don't forget who he is and get his name wrong -have you not noticed he's already hacked Niuniu's account... You'll be the next pleb in line...

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by MacNut

What is the protocol when the queen calls. The president doesn't do a personal call, he is usually transfered. Does the queen have handlers that make the initial call?

I don't know what the exact protocol is. However, I do know of cases where highly placed individuals (such as Government Ministers) demanded information in advance (such as exam results of children) and individuals who declined to furnish them with such information were threatened - the old ' 'do you not know who I am?' stuff.

What matters is that the unfortunate nurse thought that she spoke with the Queen, and felt obliged to answer the questions asked because people in her position do not consider themselves able to deny the powerful what they want or need to know.

Originally Posted by jeremy h

Pssst... be careful - don't forget who he is and get his name wrong -have you not noticed he's already hacked Niuniu's account... You'll be the next pleb in line...

Oooops. My bad. Clearly was not paying full attention, there; I've rapped student knuckles for less......Thank you. My post is now corrected, but still lingers - as an erroneous quote - in cyberspace.

And yes, I recognised the cad masquerading as Niuniu's avatar.....

[Arran]

Originally Posted by MacNut

This is where the argument breaks down. I would think that if you get a call from the Queen of England that a few red flags should go up.

Not if a member of her family is staying with you. It would be expected.

The other thing that some might not realize is that the Queen is not known for hiding behind a legion of flunkies. She's often been known to get involved and handle things herself, drive her own car, etc. So calling a hospital to inquire about the health of a close family member wouldn't necessarily trigger the suspicion some here seem to think.

Although it might in future, thanks to the two juvenile DJs.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

I beg to differ. Pranks of this nature are never funny - even as a child, I loathed them, and no, we have not 'all pretty much done it'. Personally, I have long seen this sort of conduct - whether in the schoolyard, an office, or a radio or TV programme as a nasty and ugly form of bullying and public humiliation, disguised as humour in an attempt to make it more socially acceptable.

A local Houston radio station runs birthday scams twice a week. In the spectrum of pranks these are relatively mild, however I often have a hard time listening to them. Some people get SO aggravated, but in the end, they tell them what is going on, and then the victim says in good humor, they will kill their loved one who set them up. That is until someone actually does... They are pre-recorded.

[waloshin]

i dont understand why the nurse would commit suicide, makes no sense.

[Reach9]

This is absolutely ridiculous, and a very unfortunate incident.

People play pranks all the time, and unfortunately this one had a tragic ending that nobody saw coming.
The DJs are not to blame for this, they did pre-record the call, and the call was viewed by every level of Management at the station according to news. Apparently the prank did not break any laws and was not illegal.

Clearly this woman had mental issues, and there was no way for the DJs to know that.
Maybe she took her job extremely seriously, we need to wait until we find out the reason behind her suicide.

For everyone who is saying that pranks aren't funny, stop being a hypocrite. I'm sure you have pranked/joked with a person at least once in your life.

Also, what is with people and trying to find blame? It seems as though people like to point the finger at someone else.
I don't see anyone at fault here, it's just a tragic situation.
If the lady was mentally unstable then she should've received help, and should not have been in that stressful environment.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Reach9

The DJs are not to blame for this, they did pre-record the call, and the call was viewed by every level of Management at the station according to news. Apparently the prank did not break any laws and was not illegal.

007, do pay attention!!

They failed to get the victim's permission to broadcast at any time during the call.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by waloshin

i dont understand

Yes.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

007, do pay attention!!

They failed to get the victim's permission to broadcast at any time during the call.

Exactly. And they also attempted to obtain someone's medical details without permission under false pretences.

[Happybunny]

It does look like the radio station is trying to do the right thing.

Kate hoax: Radio station to donate to nurse family

The Australian radio station whose DJs made a hoax call to a nurse who was later found dead is to give at least £320,000 to a fund for her family.

Sydney broadcaster 2Day FM said it would donate the money from its advertising profits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20673899

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Sydney broadcaster 2Day FM said it would donate the money from its advertising profits.

I'm sure the shareholders would approve of said action, no problem .... right?

Someone's head will roll, and I don't mean the DJ's themselves.