When a joke goes too far

[streetster]

@streetster I see your point but I would like to say that your example is a bit poor , you didnt intentially block the guy from getting on that train it isnt your fault, however if you distracted him then made him miss it then its a bit different!.

It's not a great example, but the best that pre-coffee me could come up with Let's say that I used the old "Oi, look over there" trick and got on the train whilst he was distracted. By your logic, have I directly (or just, guilt-free indirectly) caused the death of this guy?

There are a number of 'what ifs', but if that particular nurse hadn't answered the phone, and someone else had, there's no certainty that nurse 'y' would have committed suicide as a result of forwarding the prank call... I think the picture posted by Biscuit sums that up fairly well...

[Rave]

I genuinely can't believe that there are still people who are arguing that these DJs should feel guilty. As evidenced by their tears when they were interviewed a couple of days ago, they clearly do, as I would in their situation. But let me make this very clear- the only person responsible for the death of Jacintha Saldanha is...Jacintha Saldanha.

Prank calls are an established method of comedy entertainment around the world, and have been for many years. I cannot recall a single instance up until this case where the 'victim' has killed him/herself afterwards as a direct result.

The Queen was pranked in the 90s when she spent 17 minutes discussing (in apparently fluent French) the independence movement in Canada with a DJ claining to be Jean Chretien. I'm pretty sure she didn't hang herself afterwards.

I feel no shame in admitting that I'm probably one of the most gullible people in the world- because I don't see that as a personality failing. If people want to pull the wool over my eyes- shame on them. I take people at face value unless I have obvious reasons to doubt them. My natural mental position is to trust people.

If that trust is betrayed, which it has been several times, my thoughts don't immediately turn to suicide. I just get a bit annoyed.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A lot of people not really understanding still.

[santa claus]

Why cant they just have a normal radio show like most people instead of having to take the piss out of people.

I agree. Why can't DJ's just play music and stfu? They have this peculiar view that they are the star of the show, the reason why we tune in. I can barely listen to the radio these days because of all the gabble.

[Saracen]

I genuinely can't believe that there are still people who are arguing that these DJs should feel guilty. ....

But let me make this very clear- the only person responsible for the death of Jacintha Saldanha is...Jacintha Saldanha.

.....

And I can't believe there are people that think this pair of ignorant, self-centred muppets aren't, at the very least, responsible.

They undertook this prank for a cheap and tasteless supposed laugh, regardless of any consequences it may have. Hence, "self-centred". And in the name of the tasteless "prank" they dignify with the term "entertainment", they prank a hospital.

And they did it with no regard for whatever the consequences might be. Could they have predicted suicide? Probably not, certainly not with any real likelihood. But it is a simple fact that they did not and could not know what would happen when they rang, and it's not a stretch to see it would have consequences, and they might be serious. They say they "expected" to be hung up on. It doesn't take much to predict that they may not have been. And if they weren't, it doesn't take much to predict that they may get through, and might be given some information, even if it's just something neutral like "she's resting comfortably".

If that happens, it's eminently predictable that whoever they pranked is going to be both the subject of intense press interest, and quite possibly, disciplinary procedure from their employer. It's not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that it could result in dismissal. If a hospital worker leaked minor details about, well, me, and my medical condition to some nosy asshole of a reporter, I'd be flaming furious, and I'm just another anonymous "pleb". And I WOULD be complaining to both the hospital management, and probably the information commissioner.

Why. Because I regard my medical condition to be a private matter between myself and relevant medical staff. Nobody else has a right to know, unless I choose to tell them. That includes my family, though I would choose to tell them, at least, immediate family.

And it wasn't an anonymous "pleb" that these morons chose to target. Instead, they chose and apparently nice young woman, currently highly vulnerable because she's, first, pregnant, and secondly, having some already well-publicised issues with it. And she's high profile solely because of who she decided to marry. She's not exactly a publicity-seeking Hollywood star exploiting the media for her own career advancement, and hence perhaps arguably deserves the bad side of the press because she sought out the good.

I called this pair of morons "ignorant". Why? They stated recently that they expected to be hung up upon because if their "silly accents". Well, if they'd rung me, I'd have regarded their accents as silly, and clearly not the Queen, instantly. But, they are either unaware, or ignored, the fact that quite a large proportion of NHS staff are not English-born, do not have English as their first language, and in many cases, are possessed or a marked foreign accent themselves. Yet, at 5am or whatever it was, are supposed to be discerning enough to pick out the silly accent used by these muppets from the "silly" accent the Queen has?

Hence, "ignorant".

And they are responsible, and guilty, because while they may not have been able to predict suicide as a likely outcome, they absolutely should have been able to predict consequences as likely, if indeed, not virtually certain, if their prank wasn't detected immediately. And for the reasons given above, it is entirely predictable it may not have been detected.

Apparently, they expected to get though to some kind of receptionist. Again, ignorance. There are countless cases of phone numbers that will put you directly through to medical staff on a ward.

A relative of mine recently spent several weeks in intensive care (cardiac ICU at Sheffield North, the staff of which were, by the way, absolutely outstanding, wonderful and generally fantastic, down the the last individual). I rang countless times, and directly to the ICU, spoke to whoever was manning the desk (usually a sister), and was talking to the nurse caring for my relative within a minute or so, nearly every time. Staffing there was one-to-one, so unless that nurse was doing something that couldn't be interrupted, they came straight to the phone. And that's an NHS unit, in an NHS hospital. No talking to reception, no talking to a switchboard operator, no hanging around or being transferred all over the county - I talked direct to medical staff every time. And the desk where that phone rang was about 20 feet from the bed my relative was in.

One reason they may do this is, especially with an ICU, because it's a very stressful time for relatives, and getting directly though, without being bounced around a switchboard, minimises that stress. They did ask that family coordinate through one contact, and that we distribute information to everybody else so that the nurse isn't giving the same feedback to loads of family members, but beyond that, the number is hardly confidential, and it directly accesses medical staff.

So if these two twits didn't know that (or did but did it anyway), then again, "ignorance".

And, they are also ignorant if they did not consider that people have complicated lives, and that these are hard times. Nursing is often at best, stressful.

Nobody knows what stresses a given nurse is under. Maybe there's serious illness in her family, like an ill child or a parent or spouse fighting cancer.

Maybe the family have serious financial problems. Lot's of people do, after all, do, especially at the moment. Maybe the nurse is foreign and is currently fighting a battle to get a visa. And this kind of publicity isn't going to help that cause.

Maybe the nurse herself was ill. Lot's of people suffer depression from one extent to another, and an event that seems trivial to most people can be the final straw that pushes them over the edge if they are already vulnerable, and/or depressed. If you "prank" someone vulnerable, and focus such an intense worldwide spotlight on them, it's entirely predictable that suicide would be a serious risk.

So, in the name of a supposedly "funny" prank, these idiots put someone they don't know, in an environment they don't know (that being the hospital), when they have no idea who will answer the phone or what their circumstances may be, right in the media firing line. And what had this poor nurse done to deserve this attention? She chose to be in a caring profession, helping the sick and ill.



It seems to me that they just thought up a stunt they thought would get ratings, and paid absolutely no attention to the fact that they were pranking a hospital, that nursing staff have better things to do with their time than field stupid calls from moronic journalists, that they likely would get directly though to medical staff, depending on what number they had, that they had absolutely no idea of what would happen, what the circumstances of the lives of those on the receiving end would be, or that they were trying to get confidential medical information on an ill and pregnant young woman who is a target for their monumental stupidity based solely on having the lack of taste to marry a royal.

Of course these idiots are guilty, them and even more so, their station management. They are guilty of a crass indifference to the consequences of their actions, all done in the name of "entertainment", and ratings.

I find it utterly contemptible that they were so crass as to even consider pranking a hospital, whatever the circumstances, and utterly regardless of who the patient was .... or was married to.

It's a HOSPITAL, ffs. Have they no common sense? Or is it just an utter lack of common decency? Because I cannot see any way it is not a total lack of one or the other. Or both.

[Willzzz]

There's a difference between ignorance and lack of detailed knowledge about how a hospital works. If that's your definition of ignorance then every single person in the world is ignorant. This is why legally we have definitions like what the average man would know, and the average guy probably doesn't know any more.

You're essentially saying that pranks should be illegal. You don't do prank calls by appointment, you can't ask them before hand if they have any financial problems or mental issues or whatever. You act as if theis nurse was the focus of the prank when she wasn't, the radio station did nothing to draw attention to her personally.

[Saracen]

There's a difference between ignorance and lack of detailed knowledge about how a hospital works. If that's your definition of ignorance then every single person in the world is ignorant. This is why legally we have definitions like what the average man would know, and the average guy probably doesn't know any more.

You're essentially saying that pranks should be illegal. You don't do prank calls by appointment, you can't ask them before hand if they have any financial problems or mental issues or whatever. You act as if theis nurse was the focus of the prank when she wasn't, the radio station did nothing to draw attention to her personally.

No, that's not what I said at all.

The nurse was not intentionally the focus of their call, but they DID focus on the hospital, woithi9yut regard for the fact that an unknown individual, about whom they knew NOTHING, was going to be on the receiving end, and very likely suffer consequences because of their prank. They cannot know what those consequences might be, but it is entirely predictable that there is a decent risk of consequences. And they did it anyway.

I didn't say it should be illegal (though there's a question, see my earlier post, of whether it might actually be a breach of their broadcasting licence under Australian law). What I said was that it was crass, ignorant, tasteless and utterly self-centred to pull such a stunt without knowing more about the target, and it seems, without caring. They did this utterly stupid thing for self-centred reasons. I didn't say it should be illegal, just that people should have more common sense and human decency than to EVER prank a hospital.

And it's colossally irrelevant that the radio station did nothing to draw attention to this nurse. If you pull a stunt like this and you get any traction at all, it is absolutely certain that the rest of the press will go into a feeding frenzy trying to find out who the people involved were, to "get their story". That follows the outcome of this prank as surely as night follows day. That consequence is absolutely guaranteed.

Thay also implies that, if such press interest was a factor in her decision, that the rest of the press have a share of the blame too, but IF this stunt is was caused, or contributed to, this nurse's suicide, it simply wouldn't have happened but for the prank.

I have no doubt that neither these idiot DJs, nor their management, intended for this consequence to happen. But they did it regardless of the fact that consequences, or one severity or another, were entirely predictable. That is was so sad a consequence was not likely, but would it be all right if the nurse had, perhaps, simply been fired as a result, and the family loose a breadwinner because of it?

That is my point. Consequences were predictable as, at the very least, a distinct possibility.

Suppose you go into a crowded shopping mall and empty the magazine of a machine gun into the air. Does it mitigate responsibility for anyone killed simply because you weren't aiming at them?

Suppose you fly over an expanse of open countryside and deliberately drop a brick. Does it absolve you of liability because you didn't see anyone below, yet nonetheless, you kill someone?

Okay, these are extreme examples, but they have a couple of points in common. First, someone is hurt or killed because and only because of your actions. Second, they were hurt or killed precisely because of the actions, and if it was reasonable to predict that those actions could cause death or injury, you are going to be liable.

Those journalists could have and should have predicted that their actions may very well have consequence. Hence, they are responsible for what happened because they acted with either callous or thoughtless indifference to the consequences of their actions.

We all owe a duty of care in our actions to not do things that can reasonably be predicted to hurt others, at least, not without an extremely good reason. And before anyone asks, I'm not going to get into what that "good reason" might be, at least, not in this thread. That will end up with a serious discussion of philosophy, and it's not relevant here. Besides, we've done it before.

[Willzzz]

The thing is I don't see how it being a hospital is even relevant. You prank any large organisation you don't know who is going to pick up the phone. You don't know anything about that person. You could prank any organisation and get hold of someone who is emotionally vulnerable.

[Saracen]

The thing is I don't see how it being a hospital is even relevant. You prank any large organisation you don't know who is going to pick up the phone. You don't know anything about that person. You could prank any organisation and get hold of someone who is emotionally vulnerable.

Indeed you could, which is why you need to think things through before you do them, or why you are responsible for what happens if you don't.

A hospital is a bit different, though, when you are not just pulling some harmless jape, but trying to get confidential medical information on an individual that has every expectation of medical confidentiality.

But whatever the organisation, if you pull a "prank" that has a decent potential for getting an individual disciplined, maybe fired, where's the justification for you deciding that your motivations are sufficient that that other person's well-being are to be sacrificed?


Let me ask you this.

If you knew that making such a phone call would cause the recipient to be fired, would you make it?

What if it was 80% likely they'd be fired?

What about 50% fired?

What if it's maybe just a 10% chance they'd lose their job over your "prank"? Would you do it, 'cos, hey, it's only a 10% chance they'll be fired.

How would you feel if it was me making that prank call, and you got fired because if it, and I said, hey, it was only a 10% chance. Tough luck, old bean. Them's the breaks., Good prank though, wasn't it? Even though in this case, it wasn't even a good prank, not that it would have been excusable if it was.

If you're the one at risk, what gives me, or some idiot DJs on the other side of the world, the right to play Russian roulette with your career, or employment, or livelihood, over a prank?

That these morons didn't know specifically who's life they were messing with is no semblance of an excuse. They did not know if, but should have been able to predict, that they were messing with someone's life circumstances, and they had NO IDEA who, or what those circumstances were, or what the consequences for their victim would be. Like my earlier example, they just fired off their tasteless joke without regard, and probably without thought, for who might suffer, and how.

It might not be illegal, and probably shouldn't be, but it should be simple human compassion that says you don't screw about with other people's lives in this casual, thoughtless and crass manner, over some pathetic joke, if for no other reason than that you hope everybody else has the simple, human decency and compassion not to screw with you with such callous disregard for consequence.

But no, for the high and mighty principle of a cheap radio prank, they didn't show any concern for who might get hurt, or how badly. These two thoughtless morons, and even more so, their management, are a disgrace to human decency.

[Hicks12]

The thing is I don't see how it being a hospital is even relevant. You prank any large organisation you don't know who is going to pick up the phone. You don't know anything about that person. You could prank any organisation and get hold of someone who is emotionally vulnerable.

Thats a bit silly, would you ring up 999 and prank them? No you wouldnt dare... hospital is similar as if you actually get to talk to on the ground staff (nurses etc) then you're taking up their time they could be saving lives, missed opportunities.

So if you plan on pranking a large organisation say Microsoft, you ring up microsoft pretend to be someone you arent and get access to all their information, hardly a prank and thats exactly what happened here.... bunch of losers in that radio station.

[Willzzz]

Are you putting lives in danger if you ring up with a regular query? Surely if a nurse was really that busy they wouldn't pick up the phone?

If they had actually got confidential information then their lawyers wouldn't have let it go out.

If you have to carefully consider every prank with full regard to people's feelings then no pranks would ever happen.

If someone does give out confidential information over the phone then maybe they do deserve to get fired, or more likely in this case management was at fault for not giving training/asking a nurse to do a receptionists job. But what if it was really someone who was trying to get hold of confidential information with malicious intent? Should the hospital disregard it, should they allow staff to think that it isn't important.

If I gave out confidential information at work I would expect to get disciplined, whether it was a prank or something worse wouldn't be relevant.

[Unique]

I agree. Why can't DJ's just play music and stfu? They have this peculiar view that they are the star of the show, the reason why we tune in. I can barely listen to the radio these days because of all the gabble.

i don't listen to radio myself as i'm a huge music fan, so hearing people talk over records, tell me the time and weather every five minutes, plus jingles, adverts and the same 5 songs played every hour is my idea of hell. but, i used to be friends with a lot of people who worked at a radio station, including a few of the dj's and the guy who did the breakfast show (which apparently is the most listened to show on most stations) explained that asides from rules dictating how much music they could legally play in an hour (which presumably varies in different countries as they will be licensed differently), they did research that showed that most listeners wanted to hear chat as radio unlike tv was more seen as a companion of sorts to people either home alone, getting read for work, travelling to work, and at work itself, and the chat and call ins and requests made people feel more inclusive

the people i knew weren't big stars, and being radio few people knew them from adam when in person. even at one or two live outside broadcasts i was at, they were relatively left alone, but they got letters and calls to the studio, based on their on air personality and what they said on air, so people did pay attention to the voice. i doubt the BBC would be paying huge sums to people like chris moyles (not a particularly nice in person in my experience - and he's very short too) if the personality didn't matter

[Willzzz]

Yeah the whole point of radio is to listen to people talking, if you only want to listen to music then that's what CDs and ipods, etc. are for.
Listening to the radio is very comforting when you are alone.

[santa claus]

i don't listen to radio myself as i'm a huge music fan, so hearing people talk over records, tell me the time and weather every five minutes, plus jingles, adverts and the same 5 songs played every hour is my idea of hell. but, i used to be friends with a lot of people who worked at a radio station, including a few of the dj's and the guy who did the breakfast show (which apparently is the most listened to show on most stations) explained that asides from rules dictating how much music they could legally play in an hour (which presumably varies in different countries as they will be licensed differently), they did research that showed that most listeners wanted to hear chat as radio unlike tv was more seen as a companion of sorts to people either home alone, getting read for work, travelling to work, and at work itself, and the chat and call ins and requests made people feel more inclusive

the people i knew weren't big stars, and being radio few people knew them from adam when in person. even at one or two live outside broadcasts i was at, they were relatively left alone, but they got letters and calls to the studio, based on their on air personality and what they said on air, so people did pay attention to the voice. i doubt the BBC would be paying huge sums to people like chris moyles (not a particularly nice in person in my experience - and he's very short too) if the personality didn't matter

Fair enough. I expressed a personal opinion and preference; yours may be different. However, if the radio moguls want to maximise their audience, they should better cater for the diversity of its listeners. Again, imho.

Yeah the whole point of radio is to listen to people talking......

I enjoy listening to talking on the radio; it's the nonsensical yabbering to which I object. There's far more of the latter going on.

[Saracen]

Are you putting lives in danger if you ring up with a regular query? Surely if a nurse was really that busy they wouldn't pick up the phone?

If they had actually got confidential information then their lawyers wouldn't have let it go out.

If you have to carefully consider every prank with full regard to people's feelings then no pranks would ever happen.

If someone does give out confidential information over the phone then maybe they do deserve to get fired, or more likely in this case management was at fault for not giving training/asking a nurse to do a receptionists job. But what if it was really someone who was trying to get hold of confidential information with malicious intent? Should the hospital disregard it, should they allow staff to think that it isn't important.

If I gave out confidential information at work I would expect to get disciplined, whether it was a prank or something worse wouldn't be relevant.

So is the answer to the question I asked is "yes", and that would would prank someone if you knew that them falling for it would result in them losing their job, because they ought to be careful enough to never fall for it?

Part of the job of nurses, at least in some hospital functions, is an element of care and consideration for family. Obviously, it comes a very poor second to the care and safety of the patient, but they do feel a responsibility to the relatives. In the case I mentioned earlier, of the relative in cardiac ICU, we did not know, day to day or hour to hour, if that extremely close relative was going to survive. Indeed, for a couple of weeks, it was very much touch and go, and for quite a period of that, day by day, it was going down hill. So we were worried sick, and not able to be there 24/7, though indeed, we were even offered accommodation in the hospital, one floor away, for some of that.

So, nurses have a balance to try to strike. On the one hand, patient confidentiality. On the other hand, worried relatives. Some of the other relatives I got to know during the month I more or less lived in ICU were not as lucky - we got a good outcome. They did not.

Hospitals are where people go to, hopefully, get treated and well. But it's a plain fact that a significant proportion go in alive, and come out dead.

And then, we have worried relatives, and sometimes, grieving relatives.

Now for sure, the hospital ward they "pranked" wasn't a cardiac ICU, and the expectations of the patients being okay is far higher. But it is not 100%. It's a simple fact that some expectant mothers lose their babies, and that some mothers are lost with them. So nurses have that balance, between trying to maintain medical confidentiality, while at the same time, showing human consideration for worried relatives.

If the result of this "prank" is that hospitals take the line you're suggesting, and that relatives are not given any information over the phone, because they might not be relatives but instead some moronic journalist or radio DJ, then all that happens is that already worried relatives are deprived the little consideration and comfort they may be able to get by getting regular status updates. Or are nurses supposed to insist on a copy of your passport, and a DNA check, before they'll answer questions to relatives?

This is part of the reason you do not prank a hospital, if you've any common sense and/or human decency, because messing with this kind of issue is simply not faffing funny, and it's why these DJs and their station management are disgraceful morons for thinking this was in any sense a good idea, or remotely funny. They are, in my honest opinion, tasteless, crass thoughtless idiots, for ever thinking this was a good idea, and the terribly sad result for this nurse just reinforces that, whatever the totality of circumstances that led her to this desperate move turn out to be, if indeed, we ever find out what was going on in her life, reinforces that, but isn't essential for it to be the case.

Whether they could or should have predicted it or not, they started the snowball rolling down the hill, and this is where it ended up. And for what? A prank? Pathetic.

[csgohan4]

For those that are supporting pranks and so forth..

Is it ok to call up your local GUM clinic to see if your friend is HIV positive or have a bout of Chlymidia for a laugh, only to find you are and you are good friends with their wife.

It's about actions and reactions. Every action has a consequence, it would be naive if you thought there wouldn't be. Don't do to others you don't want done to you.